No it is not , England charges Scottish students and so they have a reciprocal agreement. As ever myopia from Little Englander's who want their cake and want to eat it. You just want to double charge Scotland to benefit England. Absolute bollocks, stop charging other people and expecting them to also fund your education.
The moronic nationalist tendency is clearly on display this morning. I am not a little Englander and have long supported an independent Scotland and have posted about it regularly on here - just a few days ago being the last time.
This has nothing to do with little Englanders (or little Welshies either). It is to do with a blatantly stupid discriminatory policy whereby only students from one country in the EU have to pay to attend Scottish universities. Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal all charge tuition fees that Scots students have to pay if they attend university in those countries. But students from those countries do not have to pay to study in Scotland. Where is the equivalent reciprocal agreement?
Are you so thick you cannot understand that England charges Scottish students, what kind of moron would expect Scotland to then give free education to students who should be funded by England. You cannot as stupid as you are trying to make out so I can only presume it is bigotry.
England charges all students wherever they come from. It does not pick out one country to discriminate against. I guess from your inability to follow basic logic that your education was limited to baking butteries on a job creation scheme.
It's curious that Sturgeon had a fit of the vapours over Trump's Muslim proposal while herself viciously discriminating against English students.
If you find Labour and Conservative indistinguishable at present I'm wondering what either party could possibly do to establish a distinction in your mind. Have its candidates appear naked, smothered in molasses?
Yeah, Corbyn, Blair, Cameron, Boris, they're all the same, innit? Lol.
As the original proponent of ID cards before Labour took them up, I've always thought the issue was not the cards but how they're done. Our current system of identification is ridiculous - a utility bill to prove address FFS - and inconsistently applied - try to arrange a forwaridng address in a post office, and they make you produce ID for every name in the household, but do it online and just producing a credit card for one person living at either address will do fine, with no proof that anyone else has even agreed.
The ability to identify yourself easily without reasonable doubt is seen as useful in most countries. The ability to be identified against your will is intensely controversial in Britain. A reasonable compromise would be to issue ID cards with NI numbers, but prohibit their use to exclude those who do not carry them - thus if you insist on turning up with a gas bill and a driving licence, fine. As for cross-database use, that could be made optional - personally I'd like to have my details transferrable so I don't nee dto keep reentering them, but I understand people who don't.
It'll be "Corberon" and "Osdonnell" next.
Regarding ID cards, I'm very sceptical of claims that they would be more convenient to such a degree as to justify the downsides (cost, and if they are compulsory, infringement of liberty).
Also, aren't they rather last century? If we want to go that way (obviously I don't) then surely some kind of fingerprint/retina/whatever system is even more convenient and harder to forge.
Miss Plato, just checked Youtube and apparently there's a bar on the left I just wasn't seeing before
Hmm. I wonder if the VR being developed for gaming might come to PCs (for work) at some point.
I don't know about VR being useful at work but when I was looking at getting a three monitor system for gaming I came across NVidia's 3D application (Surround?) which I could see would have been great when I was doing presentations.
The VR "hats" I am not so sure about, even for gaming. I am still thinking about getting the Occulus Rift when it is released at a commercial level in the new year but it ain't going to be cheap (£250 for a new graphics card plus probably the same for the hat itself) and then there are the side effects that nobody seems to be talking about (e.g. how do I see the keys I need to use to control the game, how do I see my glass/cup and how will I know where, exactly, the ashtray is whilst playing). I am not sure that they have thought out the practical effects of VR.
There is another issue with VR in the home, especially in places like UK, Japan, places where your average living room or bedroom is quite small. VR is going to be damn boring if you physically don't move around anywhere.
I know there is the omnidirectional treadmills, but thats more cost, and they are pretty big themselves and not convinced how well they work.
Also, with 3D showed that people really didn't want to wear the glasses while hanging out in the living room. Seems only the hardcore nut wants to run around the living room while effectively a helmet.
And finally the control system. Although Occulus have been working on haptic gloves and alike, we are still along way of really simulating what we experience in real life. So much so that when they use VR for research they have to use a wide range of other real stimulants to really make the experience realistic enough.
Crikey, Mr. Urquhart, steady on! I know one of Occulus Rift's rivals has this move around the room concept, but let us keep the level of virtual reality in perspective. If I am playing a game which, for example, requires me to fight a homicidal maniac armed with a two-handed battleaxe I don't expect to have to have the physique and stamina necessary to do that in real life. Any game designer that worked on that principle would be out of business very quickly.
"Simple" 3D graphics will be quite enough for me, and I suspect most gamers, thank you very much.
Mr. Llama, some report motion sickness or need to take a break because it's so immersive.
I think it's intriguing, but the sort of game it's best suited for (fighter simulators) aren't my usual cup of tea. That said, imagine X-wing Versus TIE Fighter done well, with VR. That'd sell bucketloads. [That's almost the only PC game I've ever played. Really liked it, and with Star Wars hype at a peak, the next few years would make it a huge hit].
Mr. Urquhart, I'm not so sure. I think VR has potential. I don't think it'll sweep away all gaming, but I do think it could work very well for certain games and co-exist alongside what we have now.
VR certainly wont fail (if it does) for lack of push. Lots of powerful organisations are going to be pushing the hell out of VR and there is a huge amount of content coming out 2016.
Having one foot in this industry and having had a go with Oculus, I wasn't all that impressed, but we will see. The headset is heavy and not very comfortable. Still have to use like an xbox controller, which for me doesn't help with illusion.
AR on the other hand. I can just see that becoming the norm. Yes Google Glass didn't work very well and their are privacy issues, but the ability to pull in and overlay information when doing a job has massive potential with real tangible benefits.
Sorry, this content isn't available at the moment The link you followed may have expired, or the Page may only be visible to an audience that you aren't in.
It worked fine for me. Open's has a Facebook page.
Sorry, this content isn't available at the moment The link you followed may have expired, or the Page may only be visible to an audience that you aren't in.
Damn it! I've set the pics to public so it might work now. It says:
"The most severe damage to the monument was caused in 1801-1802, when the Scotch ambassador of England to Constantinople Thomas Bruce, 7th Early of Elgin, removed the greatest part of the sculptures that also comprised structural members of the temple."
@HurstLlama@NickPalmer I think the problem with ID cards as proposed by Labour was that they were all about the 'rights' of the government, with little or no thought for the 'rights' of the people who were expected to use them. I forget which completely stupid minister tried to sell them with the words 'the government has a right to know where you are and what you're doing,' but he wrecked the chances of ID cards for 15 years.
If, as in say Estonia, ID cards and the information on them were controlled by us, rather than by the government - so that at the click of a button you can check all the information the government has on you, apply for it to be changed, and see who has accessed it and why, raising an instant concern if something seems wrong - I don't think many people would have a problem with the idea, although I don't think you'll ever persuade the people of Britain to carry them all the time without ruffling feathers.
But the opacity of the system in Britain, where senior civil servants (mostly, in my experience, possessed of quite limited intellect and rather less integrity) could theoretically check anything they liked for any reason they liked and there would be no way of stopping or sanctioning them - forget it.
Nick, I have to say that in the past few years I have completely changed my mind about the introduction of ID cards into the UK. Where once I was virulently against them in principle I am now wholly in favour.
The fundamental objection was that they would change our relationship with the state and that argument is now redundant. The relationship has already been changed and the old freedoms are not coming back. The ID card will just make the new relationship more efficient to the benefit, I think, of the law-abiding, tax-paying majority.
The devil of course will be in the detail. The scheme abandoned in 2010 was too much of a bodge brought about, in part, by a desire to keep the headline costs down. The first requirement would be a clean National Identity Database which takes no data from existing databases (HMRC, Passport Office, DVLA etc.). It will be expensive in the short term, probably very expensive, but without that the scheme will be flawed from the outset. Once that is in place then we could build out from it. Of course there would have to be very serious safeguards as to access, probably mandatory prison terms for anyone misusing the data.
Yes, I agree with all of that, and it works apparently harmlessly in countries that have them - I know passionately libertarian and anti-establishment people there who can't see what the problem is. The key is to have them primarily useful to ordinary people rather than primarily useful for the State.
The problem is that it's one of those issues (like Heathrow) where most people think "Yeah, suppose it'd be useful" but some people are passionately opposed, portraying it as the arrival of the Nazis. Labour gave up in the end as it was just too much hassle.
"Too much hassle" seems, in isolation, a poor reason to give up on something that you thought worth pursuing. Was it the only reason?
If you find Labour and Conservative indistinguishable at present I'm wondering what either party could possibly do to establish a distinction in your mind. Have its candidates appear naked, smothered in molasses?
Yeah, Corbyn, Blair, Cameron, Boris, they're all the same, innit? Lol.
As the original proponent of ID cards before Labour took them up, I've always thought the issue was not the cards but how they're done. Our current system of identification is ridiculous - a utility bill to prove address FFS - and inconsistently applied - try to arrange a forwaridng address in a post office, and they make you produce ID for every name in the household, but do it online and just producing a credit card for one person living at either address will do fine, with no proof that anyone else has even agreed.
s for cross-database use, that could be made optional - personally I'd like to have my details transferrable so I don't nee dto keep reentering them, but I understand people who don't.
Nick, I have to say that in the past few years I have completely changed my mind about the introduction of ID cards into the UK. Where once I was virulently against them in principle I am now wholly in favour.
The fundamental objection was that they would change our relationship with the state and that argument is now redundant. The relationship has already been changed and the old freedoms are not coming back. The ID card will just make the new relationship more efficient to the benefit, I think, of the law-abiding, tax-paying majority.
The devil of course will be in the detail. The scheme abandoned in 2010 was too much of a bodge brought about, in part, by a desire to keep the headline costs down. The first requirement would be a clean National Identity Database which takes no data from existing databases (HMRC, Passport Office, DVLA etc.). It will be expensive in the short term, probably very expensive, but without that the scheme will be flawed from the outset. Once that is in place then we could build out from it. Of course there would have to be very serious safeguards as to access, probably mandatory prison terms for anyone misusing the data.
HL, I have been on a similar journey as yourself in the last couple of years. There also would need to be protections from various branches of the state not being able to look up stuff that doesn't directly concern them. Plod being able to look up my medical data or NHS staff being able to look up my tax information etc. As you say, the devil is in the detail.
The fundamental objection remains, actually: that a voluntary scheme is ineffective and a mandatory scheme is effectively the state graciously granting the people a licence to live in the country.
@HurstLlama@NickPalmer I think the problem with ID cards as proposed by Labour was that they were all about the 'rights' of the government, with little or no thought for the 'rights' of the people who were expected to use them. I forget which completely stupid minister tried to sell them with the words 'the government has a right to know where you are and what you're doing,' but he wrecked the chances of ID cards for 15 years.
If, as in say Estonia, ID cards and the information on them were controlled by us, rather than by the government - so that at the click of a button you can check all the information the government has on you, apply for it to be changed, and see who has accessed it and why, raising an instant concern if something seems wrong - I don't think many people would have a problem with the idea, although I don't think you'll ever persuade the people of Britain to carry them all the time without ruffling feathers.
But the opacity of the system in Britain, where senior civil servants (mostly, in my experience, possessed of quite limited intellect and rather less integrity) could theoretically check anything they liked for any reason they liked and there would be no way of stopping or sanctioning them - forget it.
In Estonia there's very little you can do without showing your existence licence.
I don't know about VR being useful at work but when I was looking at getting a three monitor system for gaming I came across NVidia's 3D application (Surround?) which I could see would have been great when I was doing presentations.
The VR "hats" I am not so sure about, even for gaming. I am still thinking about getting the Occulus Rift when it is released at a commercial level in the new year but it ain't going to be cheap (£250 for a new graphics card plus probably the same for the hat itself) and then there are the side effects that nobody seems to be talking about (e.g. how do I see the keys I need to use to control the game, how do I see my glass/cup and how will I know where, exactly, the ashtray is whilst playing). I am not sure that they have thought out the practical effects of VR.
There is another issue with VR in the home, especially in places like UK, Japan, places where your average living room or bedroom is quite small. VR is going to be damn boring if you physically don't move around anywhere.
I know there is the treadmills, but thats more cost, and they are pretty big themselves and not convinced how well they work.
Also, with 3D showed that people really didn't want to wear the glasses while hanging out in the living room. Seems only the hardcore nut wants to run around the living room while effectively a helmet.
And finally the control system. Although Occulus have been working on haptic gloves and alike, we are still along way of really simulating what we experience in real life. So much so that when they use VR for research they have to use a wide range of other real stimulants to really make the experience realistic enough.
Crikey, Mr. Urquhart, steady on! I know one of Occulus Rift's rivals has this move around the room concept, but let us keep the level of virtual reality in perspective. If I am playing a game which, for example, requires me to fight a homicidal maniac armed with a two-handed battleaxe I don't expect to have to have the physique and stamina necessary to do that in real life. Any game designer that worked on that principle would be out of business very quickly.
"Simple" 3D graphics will be quite enough for me, and I suspect most gamers, thank you very much.
I think that in the near future VR could be an evolutionary improvement in 3D graphics. You wouldn't move around the room, you'd sit still, but it would be more immersive than what we have now. The illusion of being somewhere else would be stronger. Kind of like a wrap-around multi-screen set-up but better.
I do agree that not being able to find the ashtray/glass is a serious problem though. It could be that you'd have to choose which mattered to you more: booze or 3D immersion? (This is one problem that a global Caliphate would solve.)
In Estonia there's very little you can do without showing your existence licence.
Having moved house a month ago, however, I am slowly coming to the realisation of how little you can do without having a driving licence (while the DVLA sort out the change of address).
In Estonia there's very little you can do without showing your existence licence.
Having moved house a month ago, however, I am slowly coming to the realisation of how little you can do without having a driving licence (while the DVLA sort out the change of address).
In Estonia there's very little you can do without showing your existence licence.
Having moved house a month ago, however, I am slowly coming to the realisation of how little you can do without having a driving licence (while the DVLA sort out the change of address).
Driving licence, utility bills, passport, a combination of the three. It's a total pain in the arse. I support ID cards because they would be much more convenient than the system we have now.
In Estonia there's very little you can do without showing your existence licence.
Having moved house a month ago, however, I am slowly coming to the realisation of how little you can do without having a driving licence (while the DVLA sort out the change of address).
The paper bit is now obsolete iirc. Edit: Extra bit. It depends on how old the photo is. When I upgraded to a card license in 2012, because my passport photo was less than 2 or 3 years old, they used that instead of a new one.
Morning Consult had him 45 to 40 ahead of Hilary, I can only see one winner. Those key Midwest Rustbelt seats look very winnable with his strong polling with both white and black blue collar voters.
Without going as far as agreeing with him, there is a point to be made from his no-muslims statement. I am sure it was quite hard to enter the US as either a German or a Japanese in say 1943, or as a Russian during the Cold War. The problem is not immigration per se, it is the left's ridiculous view that we should allow as many people in as feel like coming and impose no controls on who they are. Any attempt to set reasonable limits or weed out the country's enemies is decried as "racist".
The US was at war with Germany and Japan. It is not at war with the entire Moslem world. Trump's proposal is entirely unconstitutional and unworkable, as well as being discriminatory. That has nothing to do with the left and everything to do with him seeking to make noise in order to keep his base fired up. It's smart politics. But it is not something he could or would ever do. Thus, it is also profoundly dishonest.
Not sure about your "dishonest" tag. With the opportunity, he might try and fail: no dishonesty there. Perhaps more to the point, an instance of dishonesty (as opposed to a congenital problem) would, in practical terms, only be damning if the electorate decided that it was so.
In Estonia there's very little you can do without showing your existence licence.
Having moved house a month ago, however, I am slowly coming to the realisation of how little you can do without having a driving licence (while the DVLA sort out the change of address).
You don't need the paper bit as of last March. You also don't need to provide a new photo. They will just keep the same end date (so mine is issued 2015, renewed 2020 not 2025).
Of course, I don't have any utility bills either because mine are all paperless (or were, until I fell out with BT and ordered quarterly paper bills again on the basis that I do not provide access to my bank account to firms that have repeatedly lied to me).
Whats wrong with being elderly? You have experience for instance. Anyway the purpose of the US presidency is an elected monarchy with the checks and balances of congress and the supreme court. irrespective of the age of this monarch he/she comes with an entire administration, 100's of people, of their choice which will be comprised of people of all ages.
In its own way nothing is 'wrong' with being elderly. However, elderly people tend to think more slowly, have less energy, and be less innovative and decisive than younger people. Louis Philippe is a classic example of somebody who aged badly (and was kicked off the throne as a result).
As for experience, experience of being wealthy from a young age and still going bust several times (Trump) or of repeatedly failing to draft successful legislation due to rudeness and arrogance while being the subject of several police investigations (Clinton) are not exactly the sort of experience you want in your CEO. I think I am also right in saying both have had several health scares.
My father, who is slightly younger than either of them, once told me that he thought around 50-55 was the right age to reach the top - old enough to see things in perspective, but not too old to do the actual work. Given how he has aged rapidly in the last year and I am having to take a more energetic role in keeping an eye on my parents, I am rather sceptical of the idea that two older people (admittedly two who probably worked less hard than he did) are suitable to be president of the world's richest, most powerful and most important country. Look at how Reagan petered out in futility after he was re-elected as he got older.
Judgement is what we need from politicians and its what we the electorate judge them on. Corbyn as an example displays appalling judgement and thanks to his age has a long record of demonstrating it. Someone said yesterday that the CotE for instance should or must have an economics degree. This of course is rubbish since he needs to get elected first, and the Treasure has more economists than you can shake a stick at. A US President can appoint who they like to be Treasury Secretary, the present one hardly has an economics degree or training and can be viewed as widely political; however that did not stop in being employed by Citygroup.
If you find Labour and Conservative indistinguishable at present I'm wondering what either party could possibly do to establish a distinction in your mind. Have its candidates appear naked, smothered in molasses?
Yeah, Corbyn, Blair, Cameron, Boris, they're all the same, innit? Lol.
As the original proponent of ID cards before Labour took them up, I've always thought the issue was not the cards but how they're done. Our current system of identification is ridiculous - a utility bill to prove address FFS - and inconsistently applied - try to arrange a forwaridng address in a post office, and they make you produce ID for every name in the household, but do it online and just producing a credit card for one person living at either address will do fine, with no proof that anyone else has even agreed.
s for cross-database use, that could be made optional - personally I'd like to have my details transferrable so I don't nee dto keep reentering them, but I understand people who don't.
Nick, I have to say that in the past few years I have completely changed my mind about the introduction of ID cards into the UK. Where once I was virulently against them in principle I am now wholly in favour.
The fundamental objection was that they would change our relationship with the state and that argument is now redundant. The relationship has already been changed and the old freedoms are not coming back. The ID card will just make the new relationship more efficient to the benefit, I think, of the law-abiding, tax-paying majority.
HL, I have been on a similar journey as yourself in the last couple of years. There also would need to be protections from various branches of the state not being able to look up stuff that doesn't directly concern them. Plod being able to look up my medical data or NHS staff being able to look up my tax information etc. As you say, the devil is in the detail.
I've never been virulently against ID cards.
However, based on my experience of developing reasonably large software systems (> 10MLoC), I'm not convinced that we'd be able to do a decent job, given our national propensity for corner-cutting.
That said, if we did it right (as others have said, as a convenience for the citizen, rather than a bludgeon for the State) it could be wonderful.
Out of curiosity - do you have to provide a new passport photo when you do? Or know where the paper bit is?
When I replaced my driving licence about 9 months ago they took my photo and signature from the passport database (and my passport was issued in 2010).
Judgement is what we need from politicians and its what we the electorate judge them on. Corbyn as an example displays appalling judgement and thanks to his age has a long record of demonstrating it. Someone said yesterday that the CotE for instance should or must have an economics degree. This of course is rubbish since he needs to get elected first, and the Treasure has more economists than you can shake a stick at. A US President can appoint who they like to be Treasury Secretary, the present one hardly has an economics degree or training and can be viewed as widely political; however that did not stop in being employed by Citygroup.
Yes, I'd agree with that. But very often, judgement gets worse as you age for the simple biological reason that as your arteries harden the supply of blood to the brain is restricted and your brain functions less efficiently as a result. For example, is anyone seriously suggesting Clinton's judgement is improving with experience? I would argue that it's worse than it's ever been (look at that ghastly campaign launch video) and it was not exactly brilliant to start with.
The Daily Telegraph understands that British expats returning to the UK will also be denied the right to claim in-work benefits for four years, to meet EU legal requirements.
What the f*ck have they been smoking in Downing Street ? So expat couple abroad breaks up because the breadwinner runs off with another person, and the partner left with the children comes home to the UK and can't claim in-work benefits so they can support their family. Can't see that as a voter winner, or a recipe not to get involved in endless embarrassing court cases which the government will inevitably lose. The very thinnest of gruel. Ripe for ECJ interference.
In Estonia there's very little you can do without showing your existence licence.
Having moved house a month ago, however, I am slowly coming to the realisation of how little you can do without having a driving licence (while the DVLA sort out the change of address).
You don't need the paper bit as of last March. You also don't need to provide a new photo. They will just keep the same end date (so mine is issued 2015, renewed 2020 not 2025).
Of course, I don't have any utility bills either because mine are all paperless (or were, until I fell out with BT and ordered quarterly paper bills again on the basis that I do not provide access to my bank account to firms that have repeatedly lied to me).
I think that in the near future VR could be an evolutionary improvement in 3D graphics. You wouldn't move around the room, you'd sit still, but it would be more immersive than what we have now. The illusion of being somewhere else would be stronger. Kind of like a wrap-around multi-screen set-up but better.
I do agree that not being able to find the ashtray/glass is a serious problem though. It could be that you'd have to choose which mattered to you more: booze or 3D immersion? (This is one problem that a global Caliphate would solve.)
"....booze or 3D immersion?" Hmmm, tricky....which adds more to my enjoyment of my gaming time? Dunno, but perhaps I'll look at the costs when they become clearer in the new year. The option of the NVidea Surround(?) three monitor 3D system might be a good middle path - not quite as much immersion but with full access to controls, glasses, ashtrays and the like.
Anyway, all this talk of gaming makes me realise its time I went and did some, Herself being out for the afternoon. Thanks all for the interesting conversation and God bless.
Nick, I have to say that in the past few years I have completely changed my mind about the introduction of ID cards into the UK. Where once I was virulently against them in principle I am now wholly in favour.
The fundamental objection was that they would change our relationship with the state and that argument is now redundant. The relationship has already been changed and the old freedoms are not coming back. The ID card will just make the new relationship more efficient to the benefit, I think, of the law-abiding, tax-paying majority.
The devil of course will be in the detail. The scheme abandoned in 2010 was too much of a bodge brought about, in part, by a desire to keep the headline costs down. The first requirement would be a clean National Identity Database which takes no data from existing databases (HMRC, Passport Office, DVLA etc.). It will be expensive in the short term, probably very expensive, but without that the scheme will be flawed from the outset. Once that is in place then we could build out from it. Of course there would have to be very serious safeguards as to access, probably mandatory prison terms for anyone misusing the data.
HL, I have been on a similar journey as yourself in the last couple of years. There also would need to be protections from various branches of the state not being able to look up stuff that doesn't directly concern them. Plod being able to look up my medical data or NHS staff being able to look up my tax information etc. As you say, the devil is in the detail.
The trick I would say is to have the card, but not the database. The card contains a single number, in effect your National Insurance Number, and sufficient encryption and other magic to prevent forgery (itself a concern when you have a canonical trusted identity), and that is it. Each organisation that wants to store data against you, whether it is the police, the NHS, your chess club or Uncle Tom Cobley does so, on their own database, with no cross database access, using your card as the key.
Identity cards should be about authentication, that is proving who you are, not giving the government (or anyone else) and excuse to drag together all the data they can find on you and use it to go on fishing expeditions based on their latest bit of pattern matching magic.
The Daily Telegraph understands that British expats returning to the UK will also be denied the right to claim in-work benefits for four years, to meet EU legal requirements.
What the f*ck have they been smoking in Downing Street ? So expat couple abroad breaks up because the breadwinner runs off with another person, and the partner left with the children comes home to the UK and can't claim in-work benefits so they can support their family. Can't see that as a voter winner, or a recipe not to get involved in endless embarrassing court cases which the government will inevitably lose.
The very thinnest of gruel. Ripe for ECJ interference.
All the issues with NHS, benefits etc...we now live in a much more mobile world than when of most of these schemes were devised. When the NHS was created most people never left the town they lived in, let alone traveled across Europe doing seasonal work, or popped over the Algarve for 4 months of the year.
The only real long term solution in todays world is contributory principle.
If you find Labour and Conservative indistinguishable at present I'm wondering what either party could possibly do to establish a distinction in your mind. Have its candidates appear naked, smothered in molasses?
Yeah, Corbyn, Blair, Cameron, Boris, they're all the same, innit? Lol.
As the original proponent of ID cards before Labour took them up, I've always thought the issue was not the cards but how they're done. Our current system of identification is ridiculous - a utility bill to prove address FFS - and inconsistently applied - try to arrange a forwaridng address in a post office, and they make you produce ID for every name in the household, but do it online and just producing a credit card for one person living at either address will do fine, with no proof that anyone else has even agreed.
The ability to identify yourself easily without reasonable doubt is seen as useful in most countries. The ability to be identified against your will is intensely controversial in Britain. A reasonable compromise would be to issue ID cards with NI numbers, but prohibit their use to exclude those who do not carry them - thus if you insist on turning up with a gas bill and a driving licence, fine. As for cross-database use, that could be made optional - personally I'd like to have my details transferrable so I don't nee dto keep reentering them, but I understand people who don't.
It'll be "Corberon" and "Osdonnell" next.
Regarding ID cards, I'm very sceptical of claims that they would be more convenient to such a degree as to justify the downsides (cost, and if they are compulsory, infringement of liberty).
Also, aren't they rather last century? If we want to go that way (obviously I don't) then surely some kind of fingerprint/retina/whatever system is even more convenient and harder to forge.
I think it was the mayor of Calais attributed the immigrant problem and the Calais camp directly as a result of the UK not having ID cards and they we should implement them as soon as possible. Apparently in his / her view the ID card would avoid those with no right of abode the ability to get work. Not sure about that one....
I really wish to avoid our local plod shouting " papers, papers show me your papers."
Morning Consult had him 45 to 40 ahead of Hilary, I can only see one winner. Those key Midwest Rustbelt seats look very winnable with his strong polling with both white and black blue collar voters.
Without going as far as agreeing with him, there is a point to be made from his no-muslims statement. I am sure it was quite hard to enter the US as either a German or a Japanese in say 1943, or as a Russian during the Cold War. The problem is not immigration per se, it is the left's ridiculous view that we should allow as many people in as feel like coming and impose no controls on who they are. Any attempt to set reasonable limits or weed out the country's enemies is decried as "racist".
The US was at war with Germany and Japan. It is not at war with the entire Moslem world. Trump's proposal is entirely unconstitutional and unworkable, as well as being discriminatory. That has nothing to do with the left and everything to do with him seeking to make noise in order to keep his base fired up. It's smart politics. But it is not something he could or would ever do. Thus, it is also profoundly dishonest.
Not sure about your "dishonest" tag. With the opportunity, he might try and fail: no dishonesty there. Perhaps more to the point, an instance of dishonesty (as opposed to a congenital problem) would, in practical terms, only be damning if the electorate decided that it was so.
His proposals violate the first and fifth amendments so to implement the ban Trump would need to get an agreement to amend the US constitution. It is possible that he is too stupid to realise this and so will try and fail. But my guess is that he is not that stupid. He is a lunatic, but he is no fool. I agree with you on the political impact of his lying though. He knows what he is doing.
It will be interesting to watch and hear Trump row back on his inflammatory rhetoric once he bows out of the presidential race. He will need to. It's not good for business.
If you find Labour and Conservative indistinguishable at present I'm wondering what either party could possibly do to establish a distinction in your mind. Have its candidates appear naked, smothered in molasses?
Yeah, Corbyn, Blair, Cameron, Boris, they're all the same, innit? Lol.
As the original proponent of ID cards before Labour took them up, I've always thought the issue was not the cards but how they're done. Our current system of identification is ridiculous - a utility bill to prove address FFS - and inconsistently applied - try to arrange a forwaridng address in a post office, and they make you produce ID for every name in the household, but do it online and just producing a credit card for one person living at either address will do fine, with no proof that anyone else has even agreed.
The ability to identify yourself easily without reasonable doubt is seen as useful in most countries. The ability to be identified against your will is intensely controversial in Britain. A reasonable compromise would be to issue ID cards with NI numbers, but prohibit their use to exclude those who do not carry them - thus if you insist on turning up with a gas bill and a driving licence, fine. As for cross-database use, that could be made optional - personally I'd like to have my details transferrable so I don't nee dto keep reentering them, but I understand people who don't.
Ladieeeees and Geeentlemennn, Let me put you all to rights regarding ID cards.
From personal memory, I remember my whole family receiving our ID cards sometime in 1940, although I cannot remember the exact month; however I had passed my 6th birthday, so it must have been in the summer. Even by baby sister has one and she was only 7 months old.
The cards contained Name and a coded number, which later became the number for our national insurance after the war.
The card was really only a piece of thick folded coloured paper, but was carried by everyone until well after the war. This ID numbered card helped the call up of men to the forces, followed child evacuees - not always correctly - and facilitated Labour when they brought out National Insurance and launched the NHS.
The above ID card did no lasting harm.
The new electronic ID cards that the government wants and that delve into every aspect of your life probably will.
If you find Labour and Conservative indistinguishable at present I'm wondering what either party could possibly do to establish a distinction in your mind. Have its candidates appear naked, smothered in molasses?
Yeah, Corbyn, Blair, Cameron, Boris, they're all the same, innit? Lol.
As the original proponent of ID cards before Labour took them up, I've always thought the issue was not the cards but how they're done. Our current system of identification is ridiculous - a utility bill to prove address FFS - and inconsistently applied - try to arrange a forwaridng address in a post office, and they make you produce ID for every name in the household, but do it online and just producing a credit card for one person living at either address will do fine, with no proof that anyone else has even agreed.
s for cross-database use, that could be made optional - personally I'd like to have my details transferrable so I don't nee dto keep reentering them, but I understand people who don't.
Nick, I have to say that in the past few years I have completely changed my mind about the introduction of ID cards into the UK. Where once I was virulently against them in principle I am now wholly in favour.
The fundamental objection was that they would change our relationship with the state and that argument is now redundant. The relationship has already been changed and the old freedoms are not coming back. The ID card will just make the new relationship more efficient to the benefit, I think, of the law-abiding, tax-paying majority.
HL, I have been on a similar journey as yourself in the last couple of years. There also would need to be protections from various branches of the state not being able to look up stuff that doesn't directly concern them. Plod being able to look up my medical data or NHS staff being able to look up my tax information etc. As you say, the devil is in the detail.
I've never been virulently against ID cards.
However, based on my experience of developing reasonably large software systems (> 10MLoC), I'm not convinced that we'd be able to do a decent job, given our national propensity for corner-cutting.
That said, if we did it right (as others have said, as a convenience for the citizen, rather than a bludgeon for the State) it could be wonderful.
Wonderful thing, my bus pass. It's got my photo on it and the district where it was issued. Bit of redesigning to include a code with street numbers and post code and Robert's your mother's brother.Apart of course from people who don't have house numbers but I suspect that's easily overcome.
Although do people whose address is "The Castle, Auchtermucty" have bus passes?
It will be interesting to watch and hear Trump row back on his inflammatory rhetoric once he bows out of the presidential race. He will need to. It's not good for business.
Do you think he'll care about that? It's not like he needs the money. Looking at the Open roster Turnberry should be in contention for the 2021 or 2022 Open, but I wonder if it being owned by Trump might count against it. I hope not because it's a wonderful golf course.
I thought it was interesting on This Week that Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh of the SNP gave Trump both barrels but when Neil pushed her on Trump's investment in Scottish Golf Courses she wasn't prepared to say that she didn't want his money. See from 12:00
Climate deal 'must keep rises below 2C' France's Laurent Fabius says the final climate deal - if approved - would be fair, legally binding and would restrict temperature rises to "well below" 2C.
It's all Fucking idiotic and a fantasy in the minds of deranged world leaders!!!! HOW CAN ONE LEGALLY BIND TEMPERATURES?
Climate deal 'must keep rises below 2C' France's Laurent Fabius says the final climate deal - if approved - would be fair, legally binding and would restrict temperature rises to "well below" 2C.
It's all Fucking idiotic and a fantasy in the minds of deranged world leaders!!!! HOW CAN ONE LEGALLY BIND TEMPERATURES?
They aren't of course.
The emissions target for each country will be legally binding. Of course enforcement would still be a problem...
Climate deal 'must keep rises below 2C' France's Laurent Fabius says the final climate deal - if approved - would be fair, legally binding and would restrict temperature rises to "well below" 2C.
It's all Fucking idiotic and a fantasy in the minds of deranged world leaders!!!! HOW CAN ONE LEGALLY BIND TEMPERATURES?
"‘Workers will have to make sure their books and records are up to date at least four times a year in case the taxman decides something is amiss and investigates them.’"
Surely they should keep their records up to date at all times.
Mike K..It is a total nonsense of course....how do you tell millions of people who live at starvation levels in the third world to stop cooking what food they have on charcoal...and that is just for starters..
It is rare for me to completely disagree with a David Herdson piece but this is an exception.
Firstly, having held the White House for 8 years this is not obviously a Democratic year. When this undistinguished administration comes to an end Americans may well be up for a change.
Secondly, Hillary is no Obama. At her age and with her baggage trail she is eminently beatable.
Thirdly, the thinking behind this piece reminds me of the moronic stupidity which had Labour supporters vote for Corbyn. Thinking that political parties learn from getting hammered is delusional. It is always someone else' fault, people have always been fooled by a malicious media, if only the brainless idiocies had been put forward with a bit more flair people would have learned the error of their ways.
This happens because a significant proportion of Corbyn's fans actually believe this rubbish. Such true believers do not stop believing just because everyone is laughing at them. I don't think there is anything peculiarly lefty about this sort of madness. Tea Partiers are exactly the same. And so are those supporting Trump.
Nick, I have to say that in the past few years I have completely changed my mind about the introduction of ID cards into the UK. Where once I was virulently against them in principle I am now wholly in favour.
The fundamental objection was that they would change our relationship with the state and that argument is now redundant. The relationship has already been changed and the old freedoms are not coming back. The ID card will just make the new relationship more efficient to the benefit, I think, of the law-abiding, tax-paying majority.
The devil of course will be in the detail. The scheme abandoned in 2010 was too much of a bodge brought about, in part, by a desire to keep the headline costs down. The first requirement would be a clean National Identity Database which takes no data from existing databases (HMRC, Passport Office, DVLA etc.). It will be expensive in the short term, probably very expensive, but without that the scheme will be flawed from the outset. Once that is in place then we could build out from it. Of course there would have to be very serious safeguards as to access, probably mandatory prison terms for anyone misusing the data.
HL, I have been on a similar journey as yourself in the last couple of years. There also would need to be protections from various branches of the state not being able to look up stuff that doesn't directly concern them. Plod being able to look up my medical data or NHS staff being able to look up my tax information etc. As you say, the devil is in the detail.
The trick I would say is to have the card, but not the database. The card contains a single number, in effect your National Insurance Number, and sufficient encryption and other magic to prevent forgery (itself a concern when you have a canonical trusted identity), and that is it. Each organisation that wants to store data against you, whether it is the police, the NHS, your chess club or Uncle Tom Cobley does so, on their own database, with no cross database access, using your card as the key.
Identity cards should be about authentication, that is proving who you are, not giving the government (or anyone else) and excuse to drag together all the data they can find on you and use it to go on fishing expeditions based on their latest bit of pattern matching magic.
Why shouldn't the trick be to extend the drivers licence system to everybody. People without a licence to drive would just have the ID part of the system. If you then passed the test you could extend it to the drivers part. Overseas a passport is needed for identity. We do not seem to worry about using it to prove our identity there.
It's to coincide with what big businesses do. Small companies currently get a dispensation to file annually. Osborne must be getting a kick back from the accountants union.
Surely they should keep their records up to date at all times.
Indeed, but before you only had to pay your accountant to file a return one a year, now it's four times a year which is going to be a massive hike in small business expenses.
More corporatist cr@p. Party of the small business my @rse.
You only have to do VAT if you are registered, which means a turn-over of something like £80K (I forget exact figure). Most small VAT businesses use the simple flat rate scheme where the form is pretty straightforward. The tax return form is a total pain in comparison.
This is a piece of bonkers from Osborne. I predict big trouble coming down the track for him on this one, once small business owners get wind of what he is proposing.
Why would the average small business or landlord need an accountant to do it? I was incredibly lazy and handed my accountant carrier bags of receipts and unopened post from HMRC every few months - and his elves fixed it for me for a fee.
Given how amused my accountant was, I can't believe my allergy to financial record keeping is normal. I managed my own tax return one Sunday afternoon a year.
It's to coincide with what big businesses do. Small companies currently get a dispensation to file annually. Osborne must be getting a kick back from the accountants union.
Surely they should keep their records up to date at all times.
Indeed, but before you only had to pay your accountant to file a return one a year, now it's four times a year which is going to be a massive hike in small business expenses.
More corporatist cr@p. Party of the small business my @rse.
Overseas a passport is needed for identity. We do not seem to worry about using it to prove our identity there.
Your passport doesnt allow for foreign government to tap into your tax affairs, your NHS records, your employment history, your driving records etc. People largely don't object to carrying a proof of Id, they object to giving the government an entry point to find them in a massive combined database. One of the biggest threats to freedom in the real world is governments casting nets into databases looking for patterns, where you can be guilty just because your affairs look similar to those of a criminal, rather than because you have actually done anything wrong!
It's to coincide with what big businesses do. Small companies currently get a dispensation to file annually. Osborne must be getting a kick back from the accountants union.
Surely they should keep their records up to date at all times.
Indeed, but before you only had to pay your accountant to file a return one a year, now it's four times a year which is going to be a massive hike in small business expenses.
More corporatist cr@p. Party of the small business my @rse.
"More corporatist cr@p. Party of the small business my @rse."
Yep. It really is starting to look as if the Tories don't care how much they bash the smaller businesses as long as their mates in corporate land are getting endless corporation tax cuts.
There would be a massive opportunity here for Labour if Balls or Chukka were around, but as things stand I doubt the party will even notice that Osborne has announced this. I don't even know who the shadow business secretary is. Probably someone who is more interested in dealing with Kulaks.
Judgement is what we need from politicians and its what we the electorate judge them on. Corbyn as an example displays appalling judgement and thanks to his age has a long record of demonstrating it. Someone said yesterday that the CotE for instance should or must have an economics degree. This of course is rubbish since he needs to get elected first, and the Treasure has more economists than you can shake a stick at. A US President can appoint who they like to be Treasury Secretary, the present one hardly has an economics degree or training and can be viewed as widely political; however that did not stop in being employed by Citygroup.
Yes, I'd agree with that. But very often, judgement gets worse as you age for the simple biological reason that as your arteries harden the supply of blood to the brain is restricted and your brain functions less efficiently as a result. For example, is anyone seriously suggesting Clinton's judgement is improving with experience? I would argue that it's worse than it's ever been (look at that ghastly campaign launch video) and it was not exactly brilliant to start with.
And often judgement does not decline with age. The important thing is to have it in the first place.
Why would the average small business or landlord need an accountant to do it? I was incredibly lazy and handed my accountant carrier bags of receipts and unopened post from HMRC every few months - and his elves fixed it for me for a fee.
Because experience shows that HMRC is massively less prone to inspections and asking awkward questions of companies that have their accounts filed by reputable accountants.
It is rare for me to completely disagree with a David Herdson piece but this is an exception.
Firstly, having held the White House for 8 years this is not obviously a Democratic year. When this undistinguished administration comes to an end Americans may well be up for a change.
Secondly, Hillary is no Obama. At her age and with her baggage trail she is eminently beatable.
Thirdly, the thinking behind this piece reminds me of the moronic stupidity which had Labour supporters vote for Corbyn. Thinking that political parties learn from getting hammered is delusional. It is always someone else' fault, people have always been fooled by a malicious media, if only the brainless idiocies had been put forward with a bit more flair people would have learned the error of their ways.
This happens because a significant proportion of Corbyn's fans actually believe this rubbish. Such true believers do not stop believing just because everyone is laughing at them. I don't think there is anything peculiarly lefty about this sort of madness. Tea Partiers are exactly the same. And so are those supporting Trump.
Regarding your third point, I think the problem is that it's hard to say what Trump is politically. A billionaire populist loon? OK, lets not have another one of those. It wouldn't obviously count against the religious right or the Tea Party.
And yes, true believers won't change their minds. There are people at the margin who presumably do, though. It's perhaps the thinking and behaviour of those people - the Labour soft left diverging from the Bennites, say - that one needs to understand in order to predict this stuff.
No it is not , England charges Scottish students and so they have a reciprocal agreement. As ever myopia from Little Englander's who want their cake and want to eat it. You just want to double charge Scotland to benefit England. Absolute bollocks, stop charging other people and expecting them to also fund your education.
The moronic nationalist tendency is clearly on display this morning. I am not a little Englander and have long supported an independent Scotland and have posted about it regularly on here - just a few days ago being the last time.
This has nothing to do with little Englanders (or little Welshies either). It is to do with a blatantly stupid discriminatory policy whereby only students from one country in the EU have to pay to attend Scottish universities. Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal all charge tuition fees that Scots students have to pay if they attend university in those countries. But students from those countries do not have to pay to study in Scotland. Where is the equivalent reciprocal agreement?
Are you so thick you cannot understand that England charges Scottish students, what kind of moron would expect Scotland to then give free education to students who should be funded by England. You cannot as stupid as you are trying to make out so I can only presume it is bigotry.
England charges all students wherever they come from. It does not pick out one country to discriminate against. I guess from your inability to follow basic logic that your education was limited to baking butteries on a job creation scheme.
LOL, now you have lost the argument you try and insult me, hard luck loser I don't need to whinge about being taxed on my fake travel costs making it impossible to survive.
You are the thick one who has lost the argument and being so thick it stands out a mile.
Why would the average small business or landlord need an accountant to do it?
Good question. I've done corporation tax returns for a very small business but can't see why the average small business would struggle with this provided their records are properly up to date. Expecially for those over the VAT threshold that are doing VAT returns quarterly.
Accounts are a different matter for companies over the micro entity limit, but that surely isn't going to change from annual.
Why would the average small business or landlord need an accountant to do it? I was incredibly lazy and handed my accountant carrier bags of receipts and unopened post from HMRC every few months - and his elves fixed it for me for a fee.
Because experience shows that HMRC is massively less prone to inspections and asking awkward questions of companies that have their accounts filed by reputable accountants.
It is rare for me to completely disagree with a David Herdson piece but this is an exception.
Firstly, having held the White House for 8 years this is not obviously a Democratic year. When this undistinguished administration comes to an end Americans may well be up for a change.
Secondly, Hillary is no Obama. At her age and with her baggage trail she is eminently beatable.
Thirdly, the thinking behind this piece reminds me of the moronic stupidity which had Labour supporters vote for Corbyn. Thinking that political parties learn from getting hammered is delusional. It is always someone else' fault, people have always been fooled by a malicious media, if only the brainless idiocies had been put forward with a bit more flair people would have learned the error of their ways.
This happens because a significant proportion of Corbyn's fans actually believe this rubbish. Such true believers do not stop believing just because everyone is laughing at them. I don't think there is anything peculiarly lefty about this sort of madness. Tea Partiers are exactly the same. And so are those supporting Trump.
Regarding your third point, I think the problem is that it's hard to say what Trump is politically. A billionaire populist loon? OK, lets not have another one of those. It wouldn't obviously count against the religious right or the Tea Party.
And yes, true believers won't change their minds. There are people at the margin who presumably do, though. It's perhaps the thinking and behaviour of those people - the Labour soft left diverging from the Bennites, say - that one needs to understand in order to predict this stuff.
Yeah, I almost made that my 4th point. A Trump campaign for the Whitehouse would be a Republican campaign in name only so why should the party take the blame when it falls apart?
Another example of politicians with no experience of running a small business, this will be an administrative nightmare for both SMEs and HMRC. Penalties will be enforced which will cause resentment and put added pressure on both sides.
No idea who is advising Osborne but he needs to shelve this ASAP
Why would the average small business or landlord need an accountant to do it? I was incredibly lazy and handed my accountant carrier bags of receipts and unopened post from HMRC every few months - and his elves fixed it for me for a fee.
Because experience shows that HMRC is massively less prone to inspections and asking awkward questions of companies that have their accounts filed by reputable accountants.
This is about CT not accounts, right?
Hopefully. I always liked to have a nice respectable accountants stamp in the agent box on the back page of the personal and company tax returns for the same reason.
I don't run a small business and I'm not an accountant so don't have direct knowledge of this stuff. Could someone explain (or hazard a guess) as to why the Government would want to do this? What is the advantage of quarterly tax returns to the Treasury? Would it be expected to increase revenue overall?
Smoothing out the end of year snow storm of annual returns springs to mind - IIUC, the payment of corp tax will still be annual - it would allow a better guesstimate of revenues as we go along.
I don't run a small business and I'm not an accountant so don't have direct knowledge of this stuff. Could someone explain (or hazard a guess) as to why the Government would want to do this? What is the advantage of quarterly tax returns to the Treasury? Would it be expected to increase revenue overall?
I don't run a small business and I'm not an accountant so don't have direct knowledge of this stuff. Could someone explain (or hazard a guess) as to why the Government would want to do this? What is the advantage of quarterly tax returns to the Treasury? Would it be expected to increase revenue overall?
The only thing I can imagine is cash flow to HMRC, payments quarterly rather than annually. HMRC is a mess as it stands, this will make it worse. Vat returns are filed quarterly.
I don't run a small business and I'm not an accountant so don't have direct knowledge of this stuff. Could someone explain (or hazard a guess) as to why the Government would want to do this? What is the advantage of quarterly tax returns to the Treasury? Would it be expected to increase revenue overall?
The only thing I can imagine is cash flow to HMRC, payments quarterly rather than annually. HMRC is a mess as it stands, this will make it worse. Vat returns are filed quarterly.
The Inland Revenue as was were a complete bunch of incompetents, and HMC&E generally speaking did a good job, so they merged them and everything went down to the lowest common denominator.
When I wound up a company before the merger I gave my official notifications in, the IR sent me a demand for £19.27 along with a set of paperwork to complete, it must have cost them WAY more to process it than they got from me. HMC&E sent me a brief letter that said in effect if I owed the VAT on less than £5000 to forget about it because it was too small to be worth processing. I think HMC&E had the right idea, all companies have a duty to mitigate loss, this should extend to government bodies as well, if it costs more to collect than the amount due, don't waste public money chasing it!
Why would the average small business or landlord need an accountant to do it?
Good question. I've done corporation tax returns for a very small business but can't see why the average small business would struggle with this provided their records are properly up to date. Expecially for those over the VAT threshold that are doing VAT returns quarterly.
Accounts are a different matter for companies over the micro entity limit, but that surely isn't going to change from annual.
The issue is that it is yet another admin burden on small business and nonPAYE folk. One lot of admin per year is increased to four. Utter effing madness. But as others have said this is another sign of our distracted Chancellor with his mind elsewhere and the HMRC slipping through another burden.
Smoothing out the end of year snow storm of annual returns springs to mind - IIUC, the payment of corp tax will still be annual - it would allow a better guesstimate of revenues as we go along.
I don't run a small business and I'm not an accountant so don't have direct knowledge of this stuff. Could someone explain (or hazard a guess) as to why the Government would want to do this? What is the advantage of quarterly tax returns to the Treasury? Would it be expected to increase revenue overall?
Since quarterly returns are there for the larger companies and they have monthly PAYE, VAT etc, HMRC are going to be getting close to 90% of the CT tax data anyway and this extra slice will represent a tiny % of all tax and whether it is up or down by a fraction is a decimal place (or 2) in the UK tax revenues.
I don't run a small business and I'm not an accountant so don't have direct knowledge of this stuff. Could someone explain (or hazard a guess) as to why the Government would want to do this? What is the advantage of quarterly tax returns to the Treasury? Would it be expected to increase revenue overall?
The only thing I can imagine is cash flow to HMRC, payments quarterly rather than annually. HMRC is a mess as it stands, this will make it worse. Vat returns are filed quarterly.
The Inland Revenue as was were a complete bunch of incompetents, and HMC&E generally speaking did a good job, so they merged them and everything went down to the lowest common denominator.
When I wound up a company before the merger I gave my official notifications in, the IR sent me a demand for £19.27 along with a set of paperwork to complete, it must have cost them WAY more to process it than they got from me. HMC&E sent me a brief letter that said in effect if I owed the VAT on less than £5000 to forget about it because it was too small to be worth processing. I think HMC&E had the right idea, all companies have a duty to mitigate loss, this should extend to government bodies as well, if it cost more to collect that the amount due, don't waste public money chasing it!
The old saying about owing the bank £4000 is your problem, owing them £4000000 is their problem. HMRC are happy to do deals with large corporations, if an SME owes a few thousand they'll be hassled and harassed with bankruptcy the ultimate threat. This govt has encouraged self employment, now they're realising hardly any of them are making any money.
I've run small businesses most of my life, if my kids wanted to I would strongly advise against for lots of reasons. This latest scheme by Osborne is ridiculous and will cost the Tories votes and the revenue money.
Smoothing out the end of year snow storm of annual returns springs to mind - IIUC, the payment of corp tax will still be annual - it would allow a better guesstimate of revenues as we go along.
I don't run a small business and I'm not an accountant so don't have direct knowledge of this stuff. Could someone explain (or hazard a guess) as to why the Government would want to do this? What is the advantage of quarterly tax returns to the Treasury? Would it be expected to increase revenue overall?
That's the theory I am sure, but only a civil servant could think it would help. How many small business are retailers or manufacturers that do a significant part of their business in one quarter of the year (Summer/Christmas trade), not sure how returns from the other quarters are going to help the guess how many Santa suits a business is going to sell at the end of the year!
I was thinking of *within* the sector - not overall. TBH, I don't see a reason to fuss unduly about it. It may be a quarterly thing, but it's not 4x the work. If anything, it forces a bit more discipline rather than allowing problems to pile up for a whole year instead.
Smoothing out the end of year snow storm of annual returns springs to mind - IIUC, the payment of corp tax will still be annual - it would allow a better guesstimate of revenues as we go along.
I don't run a small business and I'm not an accountant so don't have direct knowledge of this stuff. Could someone explain (or hazard a guess) as to why the Government would want to do this? What is the advantage of quarterly tax returns to the Treasury? Would it be expected to increase revenue overall?
Since quarterly returns are there for the larger companies and they have monthly PAYE, VAT etc, HMRC are going to be getting close to 90% of the CT tax data anyway and this extra slice will represent a tiny % of all tax and whether it is up or down by a fraction is a decimal place (or 2) in the UK tax revenues.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35082895 Climate deal 'must keep rises below 2C' France's Laurent Fabius says the final climate deal - if approved - would be fair, legally binding and would restrict temperature rises to "well below" 2C. It's all Fucking idiotic and a fantasy in the minds of deranged world leaders!!!! HOW CAN ONE LEGALLY BIND TEMPERATURES?
Its ok, a delusional Head of Government can announce anything. There was once a Head of Government who announced that he had abolished Boom and Bust. You may have heard of him? His party also believed in the magic money tree.
I was thinking of *within* the sector - not overall. TBH, I don't see a reason to fuss unduly about it. It may be a quarterly thing, but it's not 4x the work. If anything, it forces a bit more discipline rather than allowing problems to pile up for a whole year instead.
Smoothing out the end of year snow storm of annual returns springs to mind - IIUC, the payment of corp tax will still be annual - it would allow a better guesstimate of revenues as we go along.
I don't run a small business and I'm not an accountant so don't have direct knowledge of this stuff. Could someone explain (or hazard a guess) as to why the Government would want to do this? What is the advantage of quarterly tax returns to the Treasury? Would it be expected to increase revenue overall?
Since quarterly returns are there for the larger companies and they have monthly PAYE, VAT etc, HMRC are going to be getting close to 90% of the CT tax data anyway and this extra slice will represent a tiny % of all tax and whether it is up or down by a fraction is a decimal place (or 2) in the UK tax revenues.
Presumably if you make a trading loss in the third quarter you can still offset it against the profit you made in the second and first quarter for CT purposes, so those preceding returns are nothing more than indicators anyway, and will need to be corrected as the trading year progresses.
I am a one man business. My wife already has to do our VAT returns 4x a year. Once a year, typically at the beginning of next month we get our paperwork together for the accountants to do a tax return for us. This is quite expensive but probably pays for itself because they know what of my VATable expenses we can claim against tax and what we cannot. Our tax code and practices are so ridiculously complicated I could spend days trying to work that out for myself.
I will be considerably narked if I have this hassle 4x a year as well as the cost.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35082895 Climate deal 'must keep rises below 2C' France's Laurent Fabius says the final climate deal - if approved - would be fair, legally binding and would restrict temperature rises to "well below" 2C. It's all Fucking idiotic and a fantasy in the minds of deranged world leaders!!!! HOW CAN ONE LEGALLY BIND TEMPERATURES?
Its ok, a delusional Head of Government can announce anything. There was once a Head of Government who announced that he had abolished Boom and Bust. You may have heard of him? His party also believed in the magic money tree.
I think people are misunderstanding the announcement. If the agreement is approved, it is likely the measures will result in a mean temperature rise of less than 2C. Steady down, troopers, we're not dealing with a modern day King Canute.
I was thinking of *within* the sector - not overall. TBH, I don't see a reason to fuss unduly about it. It may be a quarterly thing, but it's not 4x the work. If anything, it forces a bit more discipline rather than allowing problems to pile up for a whole year instead.
Smoothing out the end of year snow storm of annual returns springs to mind - IIUC, the payment of corp tax will still be annual - it would allow a better guesstimate of revenues as we go along.
I don't run a small business and I'm not an accountant so don't have direct knowledge of this stuff. Could someone explain (or hazard a guess) as to why the Government would want to do this? What is the advantage of quarterly tax returns to the Treasury? Would it be expected to increase revenue overall?
Since quarterly returns are there for the larger companies and they have monthly PAYE, VAT etc, HMRC are going to be getting close to 90% of the CT tax data anyway and this extra slice will represent a tiny % of all tax and whether it is up or down by a fraction is a decimal place (or 2) in the UK tax revenues.
Plato, believe me I have no wish to deal with tax paperwork/online four times a year, once is enough. And that is with an accountant to look over it just in case I have not kept up with the hundreds of pages of tax code. The first time I used an accountant to sort out a few years of my diverse affairs, they turned a circa £11,000 demand into almost £20,000 tax reimbursement from the HMRC. HMRC were so upset they said I would have an "investigation". Thankfully they never did, but it clearly upset them.
Although I love the fact that the vast majority of posts on any given thread on PB are gloriously off-topic, I wish to discuss something on topic
Now that PB is willing to accept that Trump, the man who has been consistently 1st or 2nd in the Republican challenger polls for some months now (and who loses his 1st place only briefly), might just possibly be the Republican nominee, may I ask you to consider that
* Trump is not just possibly the next President, but (given his Hillary-Trump polling), is also the most likely next President. * Bets should be placed accordingly
Willing to hear counter-argument, but "subsections don't like him" doesn't convince me (isn't that the ecological fallacy: you can't generalise from set to subset and vice-versa?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35082895 Climate deal 'must keep rises below 2C' France's Laurent Fabius says the final climate deal - if approved - would be fair, legally binding and would restrict temperature rises to "well below" 2C. It's all Fucking idiotic and a fantasy in the minds of deranged world leaders!!!! HOW CAN ONE LEGALLY BIND TEMPERATURES?
Its ok, a delusional Head of Government can announce anything. There was once a Head of Government who announced that he had abolished Boom and Bust. You may have heard of him? His party also believed in the magic money tree.
I think people are misunderstanding the announcement. If the agreement is approved, it is likely the measures will result in a mean temperature rise of less than 2C. Steady down, troopers, we're not dealing with a modern day King Canute.
10. The Paris summit will come up with a result: a binding treaty that will change the world
Unlikely. China, already responsible for 50 per cent of all the world’s CO2 emissions, has made clear that it now plans to double them within 15 years. India, the third largest emitter, insists that it will treble its CO2 output by 2030.
The story from most of the other major “developing countries”, such as Russia, Brazil, South Korea and Vietnam, is much the same. Not one of them has any intention of reducing its “carbon emissions”.
The best they can offer is that, if Western countries want them to build more windmills and solar farms, we must be prepared to pay them to do so out of a “Green Climate Fund”, which the UN plans by 2020 to be handing out $100 billion a year. Pledges so far amount to just $700 million. We still have $99.3 billion to go.
Although I love the fact that the vast majority of posts on any given thread on PB are gloriously off-topic, I wish to discuss something on topic
Now that PB is willing to accept that Trump, the man who has been consistently 1st or 2nd in the Republican challenger polls for some months now (and who loses his 1st place only briefly), might just possibly be the Republican nominee, may I ask you to consider that
* Trump is not just possibly the next President, but (given his Hillary-Trump polling), is also the most likely next President. * Bets should be placed accordingly
Willing to hear counter-argument, but "subsections don't like him" doesn't convince me (isn't that the ecological fallacy: you can't generalise from set to subset and vice-versa?)
Well, the argument in the thread header is (if I understand it correctly) that Trump is not liked by demographic groups more likely to be decisive in the election. However I'd be sceptical that Hillary can win if she loses the popular vote by more than a tiny margin.
* Trump is not just possibly the next President, but (given his Hillary-Trump polling), is also the most likely next President. * Bets should be placed accordingly
It is for exactly this reason that I argue that Cameron is a total fool to have got involved in the debate over Trumps comments about banning Muslim immigrants to the USA. Yes, Trump has said a lot of distasteful things, but Cameron might well have to do business with him within the year, and we have just had eight years of a president that didn't like this country very much, without trying to make another! It would have been smarter to keep his big mouth shut and let his outriders make any comments as "sources close to the Prime Minister"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35082895 Climate deal 'must keep rises below 2C' France's Laurent Fabius says the final climate deal - if approved - would be fair, legally binding and would restrict temperature rises to "well below" 2C. It's all Fucking idiotic and a fantasy in the minds of deranged world leaders!!!! HOW CAN ONE LEGALLY BIND TEMPERATURES?
Its ok, a delusional Head of Government can announce anything. There was once a Head of Government who announced that he had abolished Boom and Bust. You may have heard of him? His party also believed in the magic money tree.
I think people are misunderstanding the announcement. If the agreement is approved, it is likely the measures will result in a mean temperature rise of less than 2C. Steady down, troopers, we're not dealing with a modern day King Canute.
10. The Paris summit will come up with a result: a binding treaty that will change the world
Unlikely. China, already responsible for 50 per cent of all the world’s CO2 emissions, has made clear that it now plans to double them within 15 years. India, the third largest emitter, insists that it will treble its CO2 output by 2030.
The story from most of the other major “developing countries”, such as Russia, Brazil, South Korea and Vietnam, is much the same. Not one of them has any intention of reducing its “carbon emissions”.
The best they can offer is that, if Western countries want them to build more windmills and solar farms, we must be prepared to pay them to do so out of a “Green Climate Fund”, which the UN plans by 2020 to be handing out $100 billion a year. Pledges so far amount to just $700 million. We still have $99.3 billion to go.
That actually made me laugh. During the GE campaign I spoke to hundreds of people who wanted to ask about a range of topics, not one mentioned climate change. The average person in the street is too worried about their everyday lives to give a toss.
Unfortunately for monarchists like me that nutter Charles could put an end to the great support the Royals have, he used to talk to flowers now he warbles on about climate change, both as cranky as each other.
Although I love the fact that the vast majority of posts on any given thread on PB are gloriously off-topic, I wish to discuss something on topic
Now that PB is willing to accept that Trump, the man who has been consistently 1st or 2nd in the Republican challenger polls for some months now (and who loses his 1st place only briefly), might just possibly be the Republican nominee, may I ask you to consider that
* Trump is not just possibly the next President, but (given his Hillary-Trump polling), is also the most likely next President. * Bets should be placed accordingly
Willing to hear counter-argument, but "subsections don't like him" doesn't convince me (isn't that the ecological fallacy: you can't generalise from set to subset and vice-versa?)
Well, the argument in the thread header is (if I understand it correctly) that Trump is not liked by demographic groups more likely to be decisive in the election. However I'd be sceptical that Hillary can win if she loses the popular vote by more than a tiny margin.
Good question you raise!
Thank you. I note David Herdson's point that "Trump’s ratings with too many important demographics are dire", but that's a nonsequitur: if his popularity overall is greater amongst those who will vote, then he will win. I assume the devil is in the detail ("those who will vote") but are the people who hate him so much more likely to vote than those who love him?
* Trump is not just possibly the next President, but (given his Hillary-Trump polling), is also the most likely next President. * Bets should be placed accordingly
It is for exactly this reason that I argue that Cameron is a total fool to have got involved in the debate over Trumps comments about banning Muslim immigrants to the USA. Yes, Trump has said a lot of distasteful things, but Cameron might well have to do business with him within the year, and we have just had eight years of a president that didn't like this country very much, without trying to make another! It would have been smarter to keep his big mouth shut and let his outriders make any comments as "sources close to the Prime Minister"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35082895 Climate deal 'must keep rises below 2C' France's Laurent Fabius says the final climate deal - if approved - would be fair, legally binding and would restrict temperature rises to "well below" 2C. It's all Fucking idiotic and a fantasy in the minds of deranged world leaders!!!! HOW CAN ONE LEGALLY BIND TEMPERATURES?
Its ok, a delusional Head of Government can announce anything. There was once a Head of Government who announced that he had abolished Boom and Bust. You may have heard of him? His party also believed in the magic money tree.
I think people are misunderstanding the announcement. If the agreement is approved, it is likely the measures will result in a mean temperature rise of less than 2C. Steady down, troopers, we're not dealing with a modern day King Canute.
10. The Paris summit will come up with a result: a binding treaty that will change the world
Unlikely. China, already responsible for 50 per cent of all the world’s CO2 emissions, has made clear that it now plans to double them within 15 years. India, the third largest emitter, insists that it will treble its CO2 output by 2030.
The story from most of the other major “developing countries”, such as Russia, Brazil, South Korea and Vietnam, is much the same. Not one of them has any intention of reducing its “carbon emissions”.
The best they can offer is that, if Western countries want them to build more windmills and solar farms, we must be prepared to pay them to do so out of a “Green Climate Fund”, which the UN plans by 2020 to be handing out $100 billion a year. Pledges so far amount to just $700 million. We still have $99.3 billion to go.
So difficult to be clear. I just want to help people to parse the report correctly.
Climate change is a modern bogeyman. The climate doesn't have a status quo. Our models are incomplete, and therefore inaccurate. I'm dubious about their predictive power.
While we're clearly going to have some impact on the atmosphere, there are other major factors in play. I'd rather spend our money on ameliorating climate change than tilting at this particular windmill. However, politicians will posture; it's in their nature.
The original point was on the interpretation of the announcement. That's all.
Smoothing out the end of year snow storm of annual returns springs to mind - IIUC, the payment of corp tax will still be annual - it would allow a better guesstimate of revenues as we go along.
I don't run a small business and I'm not an accountant so don't have direct knowledge of this stuff. Could someone explain (or hazard a guess) as to why the Government would want to do this? What is the advantage of quarterly tax returns to the Treasury? Would it be expected to increase revenue overall?
Since quarterly returns are there for the larger companies and they have monthly PAYE, VAT etc, HMRC are going to be getting close to 90% of the CT tax data anyway and this extra slice will represent a tiny % of all tax and whether it is up or down by a fraction is a decimal place (or 2) in the UK tax revenues.
I can't be bothered to check but didn't the original post merely opine that this was something GO was considering? Surely, given the flak on here, there is little likelihood that he will proceed, although .... working tax credits?
Although I love the fact that the vast majority of posts on any given thread on PB are gloriously off-topic, I wish to discuss something on topic
Now that PB is willing to accept that Trump, the man who has been consistently 1st or 2nd in the Republican challenger polls for some months now (and who loses his 1st place only briefly), might just possibly be the Republican nominee, may I ask you to consider that
* Trump is not just possibly the next President, but (given his Hillary-Trump polling), is also the most likely next President. * Bets should be placed accordingly
Willing to hear counter-argument, but "subsections don't like him" doesn't convince me (isn't that the ecological fallacy: you can't generalise from set to subset and vice-versa?)
Well, the argument in the thread header is (if I understand it correctly) that Trump is not liked by demographic groups more likely to be decisive in the election. However I'd be sceptical that Hillary can win if she loses the popular vote by more than a tiny margin.
Good question you raise!
Thank you. I note David Herdson's point that "Trump’s ratings with too many important demographics are dire", but that's a nonsequitur: if his popularity overall is greater amongst those who will vote, then he will win. I assume the devil is in the detail ("those who will vote") but are the people who hate him so much more likely to vote than those who love him?
I think Hillary would be likely to win. I think the general election will be a harsher climate for Trump to thrive in than the Republican primary. However Hillary is a weaker candidate than Obama or 2008 Hillary. I don't think it's certain. Or at least, I think it's very worthwhile running through this kind of question just to try to stave off group-think.
* Trump is not just possibly the next President, but (given his Hillary-Trump polling), is also the most likely next President. * Bets should be placed accordingly
It is for exactly this reason that I argue that Cameron is a total fool to have got involved in the debate over Trumps comments about banning Muslim immigrants to the USA. Yes, Trump has said a lot of distasteful things, but Cameron might well have to do business with him within the year, and we have just had eight years of a president that didn't like this country very much, without trying to make another! It would have been smarter to keep his big mouth shut and let his outriders make any comments as "sources close to the Prime Minister"
Don't agree with that. Trump's proposal (which was to stop Muslims entering the US, not just settling there) would have serious consequences for law-abiding British citizens. If I were a British Muslim I'd expect my Prime Minister to speak out. Also, what business would there be to be done with Trump-US? It would hardly be the leader of the free world would it?
Morning Consult had him 45 to 40 ahead of Hilary, I can only see one winner. Those key Midwest Rustbelt seats look very winnable with his strong polling with both white and black blue collar voters.
Without going as far as agreeing with him, there is a point to be made from his no-muslims statement. I am sure it was quite hard to enter the US as either a German or a Japanese in say 1943, or as a Russian during the Cold War. The problem is not immigration per se, it is the left's ridiculous view that we should allow as many people in as feel like coming and impose no controls on who they are. Any attempt to set reasonable limits or weed out the country's enemies is decried as "racist".
The US was at war with Germany and Japan. It is not at war with the entire Moslem world. Trump's proposal is entirely unconstitutional and unworkable, as well as being discriminatory. That has nothing to do with the left and everything to do with him seeking to make noise in order to keep his base fired up. It's smart politics. But it is not something he could or would ever do. Thus, it is also profoundly dishonest.
Not sure about your "dishonest" tag. With the opportunity, he might try and fail: no dishonesty there. Perhaps more to the point, an instance of dishonesty (as opposed to a congenital problem) would, in practical terms, only be damning if the electorate decided that it was so.
His proposals violate the first and fifth amendments so to implement the ban Trump would need to get an agreement to amend the US constitution. It is possible that he is too stupid to realise this and so will try and fail. But my guess is that he is not that stupid. He is a lunatic, but he is no fool. I agree with you on the political impact of his lying though. He knows what he is doing.
The US has in the past banned immigration from the Chinese, Mormons, Communists and people with HIV, to name but some.
An almost unfettered power to control immigration is one of the President's "plenary powers".
Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
No it is not , England charges Scottish students and so they have a reciprocal agreement. As ever myopia from Little Englander's who want their cake and want to eat it. You just want to double charge Scotland to benefit England. Absolute bollocks, stop charging other people and expecting them to also fund your education.
The moronic nationalist tendency is clearly on display this morning. I am not a little Englander and have long supported an independent Scotland and have posted about it regularly on here - just a few days ago being the last time.
This has nothing to do with little Englanders (or little Welshies either). It is to do with a blatantly stupid discriminatory policy whereby only students from one country in the EU have to pay to attend Scottish universities. Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal all charge tuition fees that Scots students have to pay if they attend university in those countries. But students from those countries do not have to pay to study in Scotland. Where is the equivalent reciprocal agreement?
Are you so thick you cannot understand that England charges Scottish students, what kind of moron would expect Scotland to then give free education to students who should be funded by England. You cannot as stupid as you are trying to make out so I can only presume it is bigotry.
England charges all students wherever they come from. It does not pick out one country to discriminate against. I guess from your inability to follow basic logic that your education was limited to baking butteries on a job creation scheme.
LOL, now you have lost the argument you try and insult me, hard luck loser I don't need to whinge about being taxed on my fake travel costs making it impossible to survive.
You are the thick one who has lost the argument and being so thick it stands out a mile.
My point is proved when the site cretin supports the other party. I retire victorious and proven correct.
Why would the average small business or landlord need an accountant to do it?
Good question. I've done corporation tax returns for a very small business but can't see why the average small business would struggle with this provided their records are properly up to date. Expecially for those over the VAT threshold that are doing VAT returns quarterly.
Accounts are a different matter for companies over the micro entity limit, but that surely isn't going to change from annual.
The issue is that it is yet another admin burden on small business and nonPAYE folk. One lot of admin per year is increased to four. Utter effing madness. But as others have said this is another sign of our distracted Chancellor with his mind elsewhere and the HMRC slipping through another burden.
You only have to do VAT if you are registered, which means a turn-over of something like £80K (I forget exact figure). Most small VAT businesses use the simple flat rate scheme where the form is pretty straightforward. The tax return form is a total pain in comparison.
This is a piece of bonkers from Osborne. I predict big trouble coming down the track for him on this one, once small business owners get wind of what he is proposing.
Osborne is a corporatist.
The alliance of big government and big business - the gentleman in Whitehall / Westminster / the City knows best.
That actually made me laugh. During the GE campaign I spoke to hundreds of people who wanted to ask about a range of topics, not one mentioned climate change. The average person in the street is too worried about their everyday lives to give a toss.
I ran into it a few times with people vacillating Lab-Lib-Green, though I agree it wasn't a major thing.
Why would the average small business or landlord need an accountant to do it?
Good question. I've done corporation tax returns for a very small business but can't see why the average small business would struggle with this provided their records are properly up to date. Expecially for those over the VAT threshold that are doing VAT returns quarterly.
Accounts are a different matter for companies over the micro entity limit, but that surely isn't going to change from annual.
I agree. I do my return for my translation business and never found it a hassle beyond the basic chore of getting the papers together. I did try an accountant one year, thinking it might save me time or money or reveal allowances I'd never heard of. It didn't do any of these things. The paperwork required of people on JSA is vastly greater (which seems to me a legitimate thing to question - is benefit fraud really much more common than dodgy accounting?).
But doing it four times a year would be a bit of a nuisance, and like others on the thread i can't really see why the Treasury wants to learn four times that I've made £13K instead of once that I've earned £50K. More work for them too.
Comments
Regarding ID cards, I'm very sceptical of claims that they would be more convenient to such a degree as to justify the downsides (cost, and if they are compulsory, infringement of liberty).
Also, aren't they rather last century? If we want to go that way (obviously I don't) then surely some kind of fingerprint/retina/whatever system is even more convenient and harder to forge.
"Simple" 3D graphics will be quite enough for me, and I suspect most gamers, thank you very much.
Having one foot in this industry and having had a go with Oculus, I wasn't all that impressed, but we will see. The headset is heavy and not very comfortable. Still have to use like an xbox controller, which for me doesn't help with illusion.
AR on the other hand. I can just see that becoming the norm. Yes Google Glass didn't work very well and their are privacy issues, but the ability to pull in and overlay information when doing a job has massive potential with real tangible benefits.
"The most severe damage to the monument was caused in 1801-1802, when the Scotch ambassador of England to Constantinople Thomas Bruce, 7th Early of Elgin, removed the greatest part of the sculptures that also comprised structural members of the temple."
Citizen’s militia called up to fight Muslim crime in National Front’s heartland http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4638941.ece
If, as in say Estonia, ID cards and the information on them were controlled by us, rather than by the government - so that at the click of a button you can check all the information the government has on you, apply for it to be changed, and see who has accessed it and why, raising an instant concern if something seems wrong - I don't think many people would have a problem with the idea, although I don't think you'll ever persuade the people of Britain to carry them all the time without ruffling feathers.
But the opacity of the system in Britain, where senior civil servants (mostly, in my experience, possessed of quite limited intellect and rather less integrity) could theoretically check anything they liked for any reason they liked and there would be no way of stopping or sanctioning them - forget it.
I do agree that not being able to find the ashtray/glass is a serious problem though. It could be that you'd have to choose which mattered to you more: booze or 3D immersion? (This is one problem that a global Caliphate would solve.)
I lost my paper bit years ago.
Edit: Extra bit.
It depends on how old the photo is. When I upgraded to a card license in 2012, because my passport photo was less than 2 or 3 years old, they used that instead of a new one.
Poll Alert: we have a ComRes poll in @IndyOnSunday tomorrow shared with @TheSundayMirror facebook.com/MrJohnRentoul/…
Of course, I don't have any utility bills either because mine are all paperless (or were, until I fell out with BT and ordered quarterly paper bills again on the basis that I do not provide access to my bank account to firms that have repeatedly lied to me).
Someone said yesterday that the CotE for instance should or must have an economics degree. This of course is rubbish since he needs to get elected first, and the Treasure has more economists than you can shake a stick at. A US President can appoint who they like to be Treasury Secretary, the present one hardly has an economics degree or training and can be viewed as widely political; however that did not stop in being employed by Citygroup.
However, based on my experience of developing reasonably large software systems (> 10MLoC), I'm not convinced that we'd be able to do a decent job, given our national propensity for corner-cutting.
That said, if we did it right (as others have said, as a convenience for the citizen, rather than a bludgeon for the State) it could be wonderful.
The very thinnest of gruel. Ripe for ECJ interference.
The Girl Who Accidentally Dyed ‘Asda’ On To Her Head Got A Great Response From The Supermarket https://uk.news.yahoo.com/girl-accidentally-dyed-asda-her-132802276.html
Anyway, all this talk of gaming makes me realise its time I went and did some, Herself being out for the afternoon. Thanks all for the interesting conversation and God bless.
Identity cards should be about authentication, that is proving who you are, not giving the government (or anyone else) and excuse to drag together all the data they can find on you and use it to go on fishing expeditions based on their latest bit of pattern matching magic.
All the issues with NHS, benefits etc...we now live in a much more mobile world than when of most of these schemes were devised. When the NHS was created most people never left the town they lived in, let alone traveled across Europe doing seasonal work, or popped over the Algarve for 4 months of the year.
The only real long term solution in todays world is contributory principle.
I really wish to avoid our local plod shouting " papers, papers show me your papers."
From personal memory, I remember my whole family receiving our ID cards sometime in 1940, although I cannot remember the exact month; however I had passed my 6th birthday, so it must have been in the summer. Even by baby sister has one and she was only 7 months old.
The cards contained Name and a coded number, which later became the number for our national insurance after the war.
The card was really only a piece of thick folded coloured paper, but was carried by everyone until well after the war. This ID numbered card helped the call up of men to the forces, followed child evacuees - not always correctly - and facilitated Labour when they brought out National Insurance and launched the NHS.
The above ID card did no lasting harm.
The new electronic ID cards that the government wants and that delve into every aspect of your life probably will.
Although do people whose address is "The Castle, Auchtermucty" have bus passes?
I thought it was interesting on This Week that Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh of the SNP gave Trump both barrels but when Neil pushed her on Trump's investment in Scottish Golf Courses she wasn't prepared to say that she didn't want his money. See from 12:00
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06s2kq1/this-week-10122015
Climate deal 'must keep rises below 2C'
France's Laurent Fabius says the final climate deal - if approved - would be fair, legally binding and would restrict temperature rises to "well below" 2C.
It's all Fucking idiotic and a fantasy in the minds of deranged world leaders!!!!
HOW CAN ONE LEGALLY BIND TEMPERATURES?
The emissions target for each country will be legally binding. Of course enforcement would still be a problem...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3356692/Fill-tax-returns-four-times-year.html
I'm now v. grumpy this afternoon :-(
Surely they should keep their records up to date at all times.
Firstly, having held the White House for 8 years this is not obviously a Democratic year. When this undistinguished administration comes to an end Americans may well be up for a change.
Secondly, Hillary is no Obama. At her age and with her baggage trail she is eminently beatable.
Thirdly, the thinking behind this piece reminds me of the moronic stupidity which had Labour supporters vote for Corbyn. Thinking that political parties learn from getting hammered is delusional. It is always someone else' fault, people have always been fooled by a malicious media, if only the brainless idiocies had been put forward with a bit more flair people would have learned the error of their ways.
This happens because a significant proportion of Corbyn's fans actually believe this rubbish. Such true believers do not stop believing just because everyone is laughing at them. I don't think there is anything peculiarly lefty about this sort of madness. Tea Partiers are exactly the same. And so are those supporting Trump.
Overseas a passport is needed for identity. We do not seem to worry about using it to prove our identity there.
More corporatist cr@p. Party of the small business my @rse.
This is a piece of bonkers from Osborne. I predict big trouble coming down the track for him on this one, once small business owners get wind of what he is proposing.
I really think that Osborne has no idea of the impact this will have on small business. Costs and wasted time will just go up.
Small business does not have accounts depts to handle all this.
Idiot.
The only winners here will be accountants.
Given how amused my accountant was, I can't believe my allergy to financial record keeping is normal. I managed my own tax return one Sunday afternoon a year.
Yep. It really is starting to look as if the Tories don't care how much they bash the smaller businesses as long as their mates in corporate land are getting endless corporation tax cuts.
There would be a massive opportunity here for Labour if Balls or Chukka were around, but as things stand I doubt the party will even notice that Osborne has announced this. I don't even know who the shadow business secretary is. Probably someone who is more interested in dealing with Kulaks.
And yes, true believers won't change their minds. There are people at the margin who presumably do, though. It's perhaps the thinking and behaviour of those people - the Labour soft left diverging from the Bennites, say - that one needs to understand in order to predict this stuff.
Accounts are a different matter for companies over the micro entity limit, but that surely isn't going to change from annual.
No idea who is advising Osborne but he needs to shelve this ASAP
When I wound up a company before the merger I gave my official notifications in, the IR sent me a demand for £19.27 along with a set of paperwork to complete, it must have cost them WAY more to process it than they got from me. HMC&E sent me a brief letter that said in effect if I owed the VAT on less than £5000 to forget about it because it was too small to be worth processing. I think HMC&E had the right idea, all companies have a duty to mitigate loss, this should extend to government bodies as well, if it costs more to collect than the amount due, don't waste public money chasing it!
I've run small businesses most of my life, if my kids wanted to I would strongly advise against for lots of reasons. This latest scheme by Osborne is ridiculous and will cost the Tories votes and the revenue money.
I will be considerably narked if I have this hassle 4x a year as well as the cost.
Now that PB is willing to accept that Trump, the man who has been consistently 1st or 2nd in the Republican challenger polls for some months now (and who loses his 1st place only briefly), might just possibly be the Republican nominee, may I ask you to consider that
* Trump is not just possibly the next President, but (given his Hillary-Trump polling), is also the most likely next President.
* Bets should be placed accordingly
Willing to hear counter-argument, but "subsections don't like him" doesn't convince me (isn't that the ecological fallacy: you can't generalise from set to subset and vice-versa?)
Good question you raise!
Unfortunately for monarchists like me that nutter Charles could put an end to the great support the Royals have, he used to talk to flowers now he warbles on about climate change, both as cranky as each other.
Climate change is a modern bogeyman. The climate doesn't have a status quo. Our models are incomplete, and therefore inaccurate. I'm dubious about their predictive power.
While we're clearly going to have some impact on the atmosphere, there are other major factors in play. I'd rather spend our money on ameliorating climate change than tilting at this particular windmill. However, politicians will posture; it's in their nature.
The original point was on the interpretation of the announcement. That's all.
An almost unfettered power to control immigration is one of the President's "plenary powers".
Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
The alliance of big government and big business - the gentleman in Whitehall / Westminster / the City knows best.
And everyone else can do as they're told.
But doing it four times a year would be a bit of a nuisance, and like others on the thread i can't really see why the Treasury wants to learn four times that I've made £13K instead of once that I've earned £50K. More work for them too.