Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
Yes, I know that.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. He's supposed to be a patriot, so why wouldn't he choose to enrich Britain and her population, at a bit more cost to himself, rather than Singapore?
Because he looked at where his sales were coming from and growing and Singapore made more sense.
Boris sold everyone Global Britain - manufacturing outside Britain is one possible consequence of that.
I know that, but it isn't patriotism. It isn't what the red wall want. They want jobs here in Britain, and they don't want to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson.
You're losing your mind over pre-existing hate unrelated to what is going on here.
Nobody at all has to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson, as a result of this.
Of course they do.
Boris changes the rules so that less money would flow into the treasury. Less money means more tax.
I'm angry about hypocrisy. It's all very well flying the flag for Britain but it's not okay doing the exact opposite in private.
Boris changed the rules so there was 1 more team working in a single building to try and rapidly build a solution to a pressing problem where people were dying
Yet you clearly think (tax) money is more important than people's lives.
No, Dyson clearly thinks tax money is more important than people's lives.
You need to understand the difference between Dyson and his employees.
Dyson's employees are not his slaves he can in your words "control".
We've been over this. Dyson could have funded this endeavour out of the goodness of his heart but he chose not to. He preferred to get special treatment from his mate Boris Johnson.
He did fund the endeavour. He made a loss on this project.
What he isn't responsible for and shouldn't be is the personal taxation on people who would never be in this country if it weren't for them trying to help the country out - on a project he funded and made no money on.
He could have made an even greater loss rather than using his private connections with public officials to get special treatment.
My heart bleeds for poor James Dyson, what a great guy.
No one's arguing that Dyson comes out of this looking great. The question is that - if he was determined not to help unless he got paid back for it - should we have taken him up on it, or told him to get stuffed and accepted the consequences?
And a side helping of "could Johnson have tried harder to persuade him to help anyway?"
My issue is not so much against the government but against Dyson.
We are commenting on an obscure internet blog, not texting Cabinet Ministers...
The only point in your posts is to attack Boris while at the same time he grows in popularity
It must be very annoying
Of course Johnson grows in popularity. Everything this government says or does has but one objective - into crease Johnson's personal popularity.
The rights and wrongs of policy decisions do not matter in the slightest. Johnson is concerned with only one person. And his image.
That is no way to run a country.
It is an absolute outrage. Boris keeps getting the big decisions right and what he does is popular leaving those who have an irrational hatred of the man gnashing their teeth in despair. Surely there has to be an ECHR angle to this? Its not fair that people like @Scott_xP and @RochdalePioneers are reduced to complaining about a tax break given to engineers coming to this country to save lives. Its just demeaning for them. Something must be done.
Except, there is short term long term...
1. As the government are not going to underwrite the huge debt football is now in, torpedoing footballs best money making schemes out of that debt is a courageous political decision.
2. Don’t you feel at all there is going to be a third wave of Covid here, on the basis that’s how it works, it comes and goes in waves, places that don’t even lock down it flows and ebbs over them - as it ebbs we might be fooling ourselves it’s something we done, fooling ourselves we won’t get it bad again?
If scientifically I am right, the political message has to align with it? Which it isn’t.
The Super League plan wasn't about making more money for football overall, it was about the top sides taking a larger, and more predictable, share of the money.
It would have seen smaller teams in the Premier League, La Liga and Serie A in the serious financial difficulties that sent Bury FC to the wall.
Wrong. It was about generating money for all football.
Football is in crisis, losing support for the product, and with massive post covid debt. The government wants kudos for torpedoing a solution, it has now to own the crisis.
The problem is people like yourself saying crisis, what crisis?
You may be right. But from where I'm sitting the big clubs look absolutely awash with money and wanted more of it. It might be that they are living beyond their means. In which case the answer is to stop living beyond their means. Get out of the ridiculous arms race whereby they are paying more and more to star players. If everyone is paying millionaire players too much, stop doing it.
Yes we can moralise. We can do it better in future,
But if you care about football, what about now? Within the fog of this mornings hubris people are unaware how they have been stitched up by these owners. If there is a problem, you prevent the proposed solution, going forward you are now in a position of responsibility for having done that.
Why did fans and government and worst of all UEFA plough in so thoughtlessly? People not awake to the problems football industry facing, they attacked solutions in the mistaken mindset everything is hunky dory.
It’s not hunky dory, and cannot be business as usual. What it needed was counter proposal and discussion. As a Man Utd fan posted on PB last evening, he is not concerned by whatever financial issue the owners have. My incredulous response reading that was - whaaaaat?
Let me put it like this for those of you who don’t understand the business model. Why do they have parachute payments? It’s to protect football clubs when encouraged to spend above their means to generate competition, who will no longer get that big hand out. This is exactly the same position all football now finds itself post covid, this is the nub of the problem, to have competition required xx amount of spending that is now being funded by debt in an unsustainable way.
I can quite believe there are MOUNTAINS of Johnsonian Sleaze to discover.
(And there are certainly Cambrian Mountains of Labour sleaze in Corruption Bay, Cardiff).
But, all the huffing & puffing in the world really can't take the MOLEHILLS of the Hancock's sister's document shredding Company in Wrecsam and the Dyson Tax story and make them into big MOUNTAINS of sleaze.
A large number of reasonably non-aligned commentators on pb.com have said so.
Perhaps all this effort being expended on rage about Dyson could actually be put into finding some real Johnsonian sleaze ? I am sure it is there.
And when it is found, we'll happily condemn it.
The fact that they are having to huff and puff so much about nothing - when even arch critics of Boris are saying there's nothing there - rather implies that maybe there isn't actually any sleaze to uncover.
Rather like when Boris ran for London Mayor and Ken dared him to reveal his taxes - and he did and it showed he'd always paid all his taxes in full, not even using basic tax minimisation that others use as standard.
Boris seems successful and relatively simple enough to just get on with it without engaging in sleaze. Which is irritating for those who wish he were sleazy.
After the Ken thing we even got accusations that he was "too lazy" to engage in sleaze.
Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
He wanted co-location with the design and other offices.
Once that co-location was broken, and he had to setup another site... putting it in Singapore was cheaper than building another site in the UK.
I'm quite sure the scumbags* locally (who I knew) are whining about him putting the manufacturing overseas.
*They were quite clear that they liked the locals poor and without jobs. One actually told me that if Dyson expanded, the prices for gardeners and cleaners would go up, so he was opposed.
Sadly, I can quite believe the starred section. There's a development locally which isn't scenically popular but which may well produce jobs. At a function I was told, when I refused to sign a petition, that 'if it come is will devalue your house". Which will, I hope, be a matter of concern for my heirs, not for my wife and myself. And will simply reduce any inheritance tax.
My experience is that with very rare exceptions all and every planning objections by residents is connected to the perceived value of their homes. This is usually presented in a very noble way, about saving a green space and crested newts. But it isnt. It's their house prices.
Thinking the owners have "learnt their lesson" over this is as naive as I was thinking noone would ever take drugs in sport again when Ben Johnson was caught in 1988.
If any lessons have been learnt it will be in how not to bungle it. Things they might have done differently to get away with it would be:
Get FIFA's support - make it a world club competition at the outset, perhaps - so that the player's wouldn't be banned from World Cups.
Plan it as an all-in breakaway, not depending on domestic leagues keeping them in. If you're undermining other organisations then you have to go all the way. Half measures won't do.
Opposite of the latter one. Keep the pyramid.
Do a breakaway but with the top clubs qualifying each year still. So that money and who controls the competition is the difference, not qualification.
So West Ham etc can still qualify for it. That was the mistake.
That was the screw up - the founding members should have got shares / guaranteed cash (would have been unfair but meh) but no guaranteed right to play.
I wouldn't even go as far as shares/guaranteed cash. No guarantees at all but the money raised goes to the clubs who qualify instead of UEFA.
The clubs would have no guarantees then but would still be tens if not hundreds of millions better off per annum.
Possibly follow the Premier League model of parachute payments too.
Who on earth pays the referees, match officials, marketing staff, logistics people if UEFA dont get any of the income?
The newly created League would. Just as the PL does. It's not a new concept.
UEFA make a big profit on the CL. Net of all that.
That money stays in football, albeit UEFA are a bloated organisation that could cut costs, as indeed any new league would quickly become. Paying new UEFA instead of old UEFA doesnt change the economics. If the big clubs want a higher % it is either at the expense of small clubs, national associations or grassroots.
Or they expand the product by have a consistent fare of matches between teams people have actually heard of and are interested in generating more TV revenue, merchandising etc. It was not necessarily a zero sum game. The iniquitous part was the absence of relegation for the founder members. If this proposal ever comes back, and it might, that will surely be missing.
Sure, you can expand revenues, and that is what both UEFA and super league try to do. But to expand the share the big clubs get significantly it is coming out of one of small clubs, national associations or grassroots, not UEFA's admin costs.
No, you can grow the cake. Just like the EPL did after it was launched. Of course some teams from smaller countries, including Scotland, would lose their moments in the limelight of the UEFA Champions league being the whipping boys of the group and that would have an effect on their finances but there is no reason why more money would not have come into football as a whole, not just the members of the ESL.
Anyway, academic now.
The first thing I said was you can expand revenues - that is growing the cake! If big clubs get a bigger % it is inevitable the % the smaller clubs or grassroots get drop because UEFA's admin costs, whilst bloated, are not something that will dent the finances of the big clubs.
Bigger leagues getting a bigger % would be better for the sport as a whole.
A lot of money goes to the clubs from the minor leagues who are guaranteed the same money for a win at the group stage as the big clubs from the big leagues. This has had the effect of destroying some of the minor leagues whose participants get so much money from the Champions League it utterly dwarfs what other clubs in the same League but without European football get.
This has resulted in many nations eg seeing the same winner something like ten years in a row.
It might sound perverse but more money flowing to the clubs from the big leagues, with big expenditure and who pull in the big revenues would actually improve the sport all around.
Money that gets to the big clubs mostly ends up in wage inflation for the players and agents as they compete with each other for trophies. It does not stay in the game.
Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
Yes, I know that.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. He's supposed to be a patriot, so why wouldn't he choose to enrich Britain and her population, at a bit more cost to himself, rather than Singapore?
Because he looked at where his sales were coming from and growing and Singapore made more sense.
Boris sold everyone Global Britain - manufacturing outside Britain is one possible consequence of that.
I know that, but it isn't patriotism. It isn't what the red wall want. They want jobs here in Britain, and they don't want to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson.
You're losing your mind over pre-existing hate unrelated to what is going on here.
Nobody at all has to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson, as a result of this.
Of course they do.
Boris changes the rules so that less money would flow into the treasury. Less money means more tax.
I'm angry about hypocrisy. It's all very well flying the flag for Britain but it's not okay doing the exact opposite in private.
Boris changed the rules so there was 1 more team working in a single building to try and rapidly build a solution to a pressing problem where people were dying
Yet you clearly think (tax) money is more important than people's lives.
No, Dyson clearly thinks tax money is more important than people's lives.
Nope Dyson knows that he cannot ask people to come to the UK if coming here results in them paying £xx,000 in tax.
He also knows that he needs those people in that building or there is zero point doing the project.
I repeat again you as you are the person complaining that Boris agreed the deal
YOU are more concerned about potentially lost tax revenue than you are about people's lives...
This is laughable.
Dyson can clearly indemnify his workers against a potential increased tax liability.
He chose to instead use his private connections, not available to others, to have the law changed.
The choice isn't the deal or nothing, the choice is the deal vs Dyson indemnifying his own workers.
He chose to delegate that indemnification to the UK treasury, to me and to you.
This is bullshit, you don't know how personal taxation works. How would Dyson indemnify his workers from taxes on earnings they'd be liable not from his payments to them?
Through a contract.
How?
Personal taxation applies to more than just wages. How would he indemnify them from that. Show your workings.
What on earth are you talking about? It would be simple for Dyson to contract to pay a bonus grossed up to cover tax liability arising that would not otherwise.
Exactly how much do you know about Tax and employment law?
Not loads. How much do you know about Tax and employment law?
There may be some public policy bar against such a thing but in high likelihood the only objection is unwillingness to pay.
In Spain I believe footballers are guaranteed a certain amount of post-tax income in their contacts so the gross value will vary depending on the current statutory tax regime.
Clearly more than you do.
So 2 quick questions -
If say I sold none primary residency property while sat in Singapore - what capital gains tax do I need to pay? What tax would I need to pay if I was in the UK for over 90 days.
On dividend payments what happens for all dividends in the past 5 years were you to accidently spend more than 90 days in the UK..
Precisely.
You and I often don't see eye to eye on many things, but the tax system is not simple enough to just "gross up" wages and that's the end of the matter.
In fact, if Dyson's employees payed more tax as a result of coming back to Britain (oh the humanity), then Dyson was free to top-up their remuneration as a COVID bonus to make up for it.
But of course it's up to the British tax payer to ensure that no loss was suffered whatosever.
What on earth happened to charity? What on earth happened to civic duty?
Shameless.
I think there is an issue with an employer trying to pay an employees personal tax - it becomes a benefit in kind, and itself is taxable? Creates a problematic loop, IIRC?
Any tax experts?
Bonuses are grossed up all the time so that the amount received net of tax is the amount intended, regardless of the tax rate paid by the employee.
The Maths is not hard.
Indeed. E.g. tax rate is 33% (⅓), intended post tax bonus is 100. So 100 = ⅔ of the amount needed to pay to pay ⅓ tax and leave 100. Bonus must be 150.
I can quite believe there are MOUNTAINS of Johnsonian Sleaze to discover.
(And there are certainly Cambrian Mountains of Labour sleaze in Corruption Bay, Cardiff).
But, all the huffing & puffing in the world really can't take the MOLEHILLS of the Hancock's sister's document shredding Company in Wrecsam and the Dyson Tax story and make them into big MOUNTAINS of sleaze.
A large number of reasonably non-aligned commentators on pb.com have said so.
Perhaps all this effort being expended on rage about Dyson could actually be put into finding some real Johnsonian sleaze ? I am sure it is there.
And when it is found, we'll happily condemn it.
The fact that they are having to huff and puff so much about nothing - when even arch critics of Boris are saying there's nothing there - rather implies that maybe there isn't actually any sleaze to uncover.
Rather like when Boris ran for London Mayor and Ken dared him to reveal his taxes - and he did and it showed he'd always paid all his taxes in full, not even using basic tax minimisation that others use as standard.
Boris seems successful and relatively simple enough to just get on with it without engaging in sleaze. Which is irritating for those who wish he were sleazy.
After the Ken thing we even got accusations that he was "too lazy" to engage in sleaze.
Ken Clarke was similar with the expenses scandal, I'm sure he said something about his wife wondering why he hadnt claimed for things he could have.
edit: having googled his wife has since passed away
🚨🏴 | NEW: Nicola Sturgeon says that Scotland didn’t need Westminster’s help with Covid vaccines, and that an independent Scotland would’ve had just as good a rollout
Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
Yes, I know that.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. He's supposed to be a patriot, so why wouldn't he choose to enrich Britain and her population, at a bit more cost to himself, rather than Singapore?
Because he looked at where his sales were coming from and growing and Singapore made more sense.
Boris sold everyone Global Britain - manufacturing outside Britain is one possible consequence of that.
I know that, but it isn't patriotism. It isn't what the red wall want. They want jobs here in Britain, and they don't want to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson.
You're losing your mind over pre-existing hate unrelated to what is going on here.
Nobody at all has to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson, as a result of this.
Of course they do.
Boris changes the rules so that less money would flow into the treasury. Less money means more tax.
I'm angry about hypocrisy. It's all very well flying the flag for Britain but it's not okay doing the exact opposite in private.
Boris changed the rules so there was 1 more team working in a single building to try and rapidly build a solution to a pressing problem where people were dying
Yet you clearly think (tax) money is more important than people's lives.
No, Dyson clearly thinks tax money is more important than people's lives.
You need to understand the difference between Dyson and his employees.
Dyson's employees are not his slaves he can in your words "control".
We've been over this. Dyson could have funded this endeavour out of the goodness of his heart but he chose not to. He preferred to get special treatment from his mate Boris Johnson.
He did fund the endeavour. He made a loss on this project.
What he isn't responsible for and shouldn't be is the personal taxation on people who would never be in this country if it weren't for them trying to help the country out - on a project he funded and made no money on.
He could have made an even greater loss rather than using his private connections with public officials to get special treatment.
My heart bleeds for poor James Dyson, what a great guy.
No one's arguing that Dyson comes out of this looking great. The question is that - if he was determined not to help unless he got paid back for it - should we have taken him up on it, or told him to get stuffed and accepted the consequences?
And a side helping of "could Johnson have tried harder to persuade him to help anyway?"
My issue is not so much against the government but against Dyson.
Oh, OK, carry on then. I don't know if Dyson is a bad guy in this as such, but I don't care enough to be bothered either way.
Less subsidies for home owners and especially landlords.
What subsidies do landlords get? Purchasing a series of properties for rent now is not a particularly financially viable opportunity. Problems with stamp duty and not been allowed to account for loan interest as an expense now make quite thin margins.
The money in renting has come from buying up houses pre boom and bathing in capital appreciation.
You don't think capital appreciation has anything to do with QE, HTB or Govt mortgage guarantees, stamp duty holidays or bailing out the banks to prevent them mass selling housing stock? Ok!
Also housing benefit artificially inflates rent and creates a guaranteed floor for landlords.
I think HTB for New Builds has suppressed house price rises by encouraging new homes to be built, increasing the supply of homes, thus decreasing the long-term price of homes.
🚨🏴 | NEW: Nicola Sturgeon says that Scotland didn’t need Westminster’s help with Covid vaccines, and that an independent Scotland would’ve had just as good a rollout
Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
Yes, I know that.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. He's supposed to be a patriot, so why wouldn't he choose to enrich Britain and her population, at a bit more cost to himself, rather than Singapore?
Because he looked at where his sales were coming from and growing and Singapore made more sense.
Boris sold everyone Global Britain - manufacturing outside Britain is one possible consequence of that.
I know that, but it isn't patriotism. It isn't what the red wall want. They want jobs here in Britain, and they don't want to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson.
You're losing your mind over pre-existing hate unrelated to what is going on here.
Nobody at all has to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson, as a result of this.
Of course they do.
Boris changes the rules so that less money would flow into the treasury. Less money means more tax.
I'm angry about hypocrisy. It's all very well flying the flag for Britain but it's not okay doing the exact opposite in private.
Boris changed the rules so there was 1 more team working in a single building to try and rapidly build a solution to a pressing problem where people were dying
Yet you clearly think (tax) money is more important than people's lives.
No, Dyson clearly thinks tax money is more important than people's lives.
Nope Dyson knows that he cannot ask people to come to the UK if coming here results in them paying £xx,000 in tax.
He also knows that he needs those people in that building or there is zero point doing the project.
I repeat again you as you are the person complaining that Boris agreed the deal
YOU are more concerned about potentially lost tax revenue than you are about people's lives...
This is laughable.
Dyson can clearly indemnify his workers against a potential increased tax liability.
He chose to instead use his private connections, not available to others, to have the law changed.
The choice isn't the deal or nothing, the choice is the deal vs Dyson indemnifying his own workers.
He chose to delegate that indemnification to the UK treasury, to me and to you.
This is bullshit, you don't know how personal taxation works. How would Dyson indemnify his workers from taxes on earnings they'd be liable not from his payments to them?
Through a contract.
How?
Personal taxation applies to more than just wages. How would he indemnify them from that. Show your workings.
What on earth are you talking about? It would be simple for Dyson to contract to pay a bonus grossed up to cover tax liability arising that would not otherwise.
Exactly how much do you know about Tax and employment law?
Not loads. How much do you know about Tax and employment law?
There may be some public policy bar against such a thing but in high likelihood the only objection is unwillingness to pay.
In Spain I believe footballers are guaranteed a certain amount of post-tax income in their contacts so the gross value will vary depending on the current statutory tax regime.
Clearly more than you do.
So 2 quick questions -
If say I sold none primary residency property while sat in Singapore - what capital gains tax do I need to pay? What tax would I need to pay if I was in the UK for over 90 days.
On dividend payments what happens for all dividends in the past 5 years were you to accidently spend more than 90 days in the UK..
Precisely.
You and I often don't see eye to eye on many things, but the tax system is not simple enough to just "gross up" wages and that's the end of the matter.
Yes, it is. It's an entire can of worms and probably very expensive, but it's simple enough.
Capital Gains Tax becomes due that would not have otherwise, worth £X.
The Treasury therefore would have been entitled to £X.
An employer can pay £Y to the employee, £Y being £X + whatever personal taxation is due, leaving £X remaining, to cover that Capital Gains Tax liability.
However instead, the Treasury have agreed to forgo that £X, cos mates.
Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
Yes, I know that.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. He's supposed to be a patriot, so why wouldn't he choose to enrich Britain and her population, at a bit more cost to himself, rather than Singapore?
Because he looked at where his sales were coming from and growing and Singapore made more sense.
Boris sold everyone Global Britain - manufacturing outside Britain is one possible consequence of that.
I know that, but it isn't patriotism. It isn't what the red wall want. They want jobs here in Britain, and they don't want to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson.
You're losing your mind over pre-existing hate unrelated to what is going on here.
Nobody at all has to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson, as a result of this.
Of course they do.
Boris changes the rules so that less money would flow into the treasury. Less money means more tax.
I'm angry about hypocrisy. It's all very well flying the flag for Britain but it's not okay doing the exact opposite in private.
Boris changed the rules so there was 1 more team working in a single building to try and rapidly build a solution to a pressing problem where people were dying
Yet you clearly think (tax) money is more important than people's lives.
No, Dyson clearly thinks tax money is more important than people's lives.
Nope Dyson knows that he cannot ask people to come to the UK if coming here results in them paying £xx,000 in tax.
He also knows that he needs those people in that building or there is zero point doing the project.
I repeat again you as you are the person complaining that Boris agreed the deal
YOU are more concerned about potentially lost tax revenue than you are about people's lives...
This is laughable.
Dyson can clearly indemnify his workers against a potential increased tax liability.
He chose to instead use his private connections, not available to others, to have the law changed.
The choice isn't the deal or nothing, the choice is the deal vs Dyson indemnifying his own workers.
He chose to delegate that indemnification to the UK treasury, to me and to you.
This is bullshit, you don't know how personal taxation works. How would Dyson indemnify his workers from taxes on earnings they'd be liable not from his payments to them?
Through a contract.
How?
Personal taxation applies to more than just wages. How would he indemnify them from that. Show your workings.
What on earth are you talking about? It would be simple for Dyson to contract to pay a bonus grossed up to cover tax liability arising that would not otherwise.
Exactly how much do you know about Tax and employment law?
Not loads. How much do you know about Tax and employment law?
There may be some public policy bar against such a thing but in high likelihood the only objection is unwillingness to pay.
In Spain I believe footballers are guaranteed a certain amount of post-tax income in their contacts so the gross value will vary depending on the current statutory tax regime.
Clearly more than you do.
So 2 quick questions -
If say I sold none primary residency property while sat in Singapore - what capital gains tax do I need to pay? What tax would I need to pay if I was in the UK for over 90 days.
On dividend payments what happens for all dividends in the past 5 years were you to accidently spend more than 90 days in the UK..
Precisely.
You and I often don't see eye to eye on many things, but the tax system is not simple enough to just "gross up" wages and that's the end of the matter.
Yes, it is. It's an entire can of worms and probably very expensive, but it's simple enough.
Capital Gains Tax becomes due that would not have otherwise, worth £X.
The Treasury therefore would have been entitled to £X.
An employer can pay £Y to the employee, £Y being £X + whatever personal taxation is due, leaving £X remaining, to cover that Capital Gains Tax liability.
However instead, the Treasury have agreed to forgo that £X, cos mates.
The employer has no business knowing what their employees personal taxation is, what CGT they have or anything else.
The Treasury would never had had £X if the employees hadn't come here in the first place. The Treasury has not foregone anything, they've just not made an artificial windfall they should never have had from asking people who don't live here to come here to help the country out.
Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
Yes, I know that.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. He's supposed to be a patriot, so why wouldn't he choose to enrich Britain and her population, at a bit more cost to himself, rather than Singapore?
Because he looked at where his sales were coming from and growing and Singapore made more sense.
Boris sold everyone Global Britain - manufacturing outside Britain is one possible consequence of that.
I know that, but it isn't patriotism. It isn't what the red wall want. They want jobs here in Britain, and they don't want to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson.
You're losing your mind over pre-existing hate unrelated to what is going on here.
Nobody at all has to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson, as a result of this.
Of course they do.
Boris changes the rules so that less money would flow into the treasury. Less money means more tax.
I'm angry about hypocrisy. It's all very well flying the flag for Britain but it's not okay doing the exact opposite in private.
Boris changed the rules so there was 1 more team working in a single building to try and rapidly build a solution to a pressing problem where people were dying
Yet you clearly think (tax) money is more important than people's lives.
No, Dyson clearly thinks tax money is more important than people's lives.
Nope Dyson knows that he cannot ask people to come to the UK if coming here results in them paying £xx,000 in tax.
He also knows that he needs those people in that building or there is zero point doing the project.
I repeat again you as you are the person complaining that Boris agreed the deal
YOU are more concerned about potentially lost tax revenue than you are about people's lives...
This is laughable.
Dyson can clearly indemnify his workers against a potential increased tax liability.
He chose to instead use his private connections, not available to others, to have the law changed.
The choice isn't the deal or nothing, the choice is the deal vs Dyson indemnifying his own workers.
He chose to delegate that indemnification to the UK treasury, to me and to you.
This is bullshit, you don't know how personal taxation works. How would Dyson indemnify his workers from taxes on earnings they'd be liable not from his payments to them?
Through a contract.
How?
Personal taxation applies to more than just wages. How would he indemnify them from that. Show your workings.
What on earth are you talking about? It would be simple for Dyson to contract to pay a bonus grossed up to cover tax liability arising that would not otherwise.
Exactly how much do you know about Tax and employment law?
Not loads. How much do you know about Tax and employment law?
There may be some public policy bar against such a thing but in high likelihood the only objection is unwillingness to pay.
In Spain I believe footballers are guaranteed a certain amount of post-tax income in their contacts so the gross value will vary depending on the current statutory tax regime.
Clearly more than you do.
So 2 quick questions -
If say I sold none primary residency property while sat in Singapore - what capital gains tax do I need to pay? What tax would I need to pay if I was in the UK for over 90 days.
On dividend payments what happens for all dividends in the past 5 years were you to accidently spend more than 90 days in the UK..
All these questions have a defined answer that Dyson could have agreed to indemnify if they wanted to.
I think you need to think things through a lot more - companies really don't want to indemnify potentially unlimited costs especially when it's not generating any additional revenue.
Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
Yes, I know that.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. He's supposed to be a patriot, so why wouldn't he choose to enrich Britain and her population, at a bit more cost to himself, rather than Singapore?
Because he looked at where his sales were coming from and growing and Singapore made more sense.
Boris sold everyone Global Britain - manufacturing outside Britain is one possible consequence of that.
I know that, but it isn't patriotism. It isn't what the red wall want. They want jobs here in Britain, and they don't want to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson.
You're losing your mind over pre-existing hate unrelated to what is going on here.
Nobody at all has to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson, as a result of this.
Of course they do.
Boris changes the rules so that less money would flow into the treasury. Less money means more tax.
I'm angry about hypocrisy. It's all very well flying the flag for Britain but it's not okay doing the exact opposite in private.
Boris changed the rules so there was 1 more team working in a single building to try and rapidly build a solution to a pressing problem where people were dying
Yet you clearly think (tax) money is more important than people's lives.
No, Dyson clearly thinks tax money is more important than people's lives.
Nope Dyson knows that he cannot ask people to come to the UK if coming here results in them paying £xx,000 in tax.
He also knows that he needs those people in that building or there is zero point doing the project.
I repeat again you as you are the person complaining that Boris agreed the deal
YOU are more concerned about potentially lost tax revenue than you are about people's lives...
This is laughable.
Dyson can clearly indemnify his workers against a potential increased tax liability.
He chose to instead use his private connections, not available to others, to have the law changed.
The choice isn't the deal or nothing, the choice is the deal vs Dyson indemnifying his own workers.
He chose to delegate that indemnification to the UK treasury, to me and to you.
This is bullshit, you don't know how personal taxation works. How would Dyson indemnify his workers from taxes on earnings they'd be liable not from his payments to them?
Through a contract.
How?
Personal taxation applies to more than just wages. How would he indemnify them from that. Show your workings.
What on earth are you talking about? It would be simple for Dyson to contract to pay a bonus grossed up to cover tax liability arising that would not otherwise.
Exactly how much do you know about Tax and employment law?
Not loads. How much do you know about Tax and employment law?
There may be some public policy bar against such a thing but in high likelihood the only objection is unwillingness to pay.
In Spain I believe footballers are guaranteed a certain amount of post-tax income in their contacts so the gross value will vary depending on the current statutory tax regime.
Clearly more than you do.
So 2 quick questions -
If say I sold none primary residency property while sat in Singapore - what capital gains tax do I need to pay? What tax would I need to pay if I was in the UK for over 90 days.
On dividend payments what happens for all dividends in the past 5 years were you to accidently spend more than 90 days in the UK..
All these questions have a defined answer that Dyson could have agreed to indemnify if they wanted to.
I think you need to think things through a lot more - companies really don't want to indemnify potentially unlimited costs especially when it's not generating any additional revenue.
Of course they don't. I didn't say they wanted to.
Naughty, you've declined to decline Societas Britannica into the necessary objective genitive: Malleus Societatis Britannicae.
Surely Confederationis?
We had a bit of a discussion about this yesterday: foederatio / confoederatio are both distinctly late Latin, whereas societas is perfectly classical and carries the right kind of political connotation; I could also have added one of the rarer senses of concilium. Remember the Social War.
For those of a more polemical Scottish Nationalist mindset, simple imperium would also have been quite idiomatic...
There is a potential dissertation in the question whether they just lacked the word or lacked the concept. It is notable that "Delian league" and "Latin league" are both modern coinages with no.ancient equivalent. Peaceful and ostensibly equal mergers were few and far between.
Absolutely damn right, during a pandemic you do whatever it takes to get the medical equipment we need.
You'd rather people die than Boris does his job wouldn't you?
Those deaths would have been on James Dyson.
The absolute gall of you people defending him for putting his own (despicable) tax arrangements above people's lives.
Sums up everything that is wrong with 21st century capitalism.
You what?
If employees working in and based in Singapore had stayed in Singapore, rather than coming to the UK and working not-for-profit to save lives in the UK, then how would that have put deaths on his head?
"I refuse to come to my own country and save lives of my compatriots unless you change the law to protect my tax arrangements, Boris".
Imagine someone actually saying that.
Then imagine defending someone who said that.
Christ on a bike, there's no morals left whatsoever.
I thought these people were supposed to believe in Britain and the British people?
Imagine defending a position where you'd rather watch people die than give a tax break to the person who could save their lives.
Oh, wait. I don't have to imagine.
If Dyson employees were unwilling to come back to the UK to help the nation during a pandemic, I'm sure there were plenty of companies and employees in the UK who would have been wiling to do the work.
Why does the work have to come from Boris's mates?
Because "his mates" are experts in their field who were offering to help the country not for profit. 🤦♂️
During a pandemic it isn't wise to turn down offers to help from those who know what they're talking about. Especially when they're doing so not for profit.
Of all the things to whinge about, this is scraping the barrel.
Neither JCB nor Dyson are expert in medical equipment. Dyson doesn't even make very good vacuum cleaners, frankly. I had one of their handheld ones and it is very badly designed and no better than others. Never again will I pay money for their vacuums.
People and companies who base themselves abroad to save money and whose first response in a pandemic is to worry about paying a bit more tax when others are losing their entire livelihoods and businesses do not get to play the "I'm a patriotic volunteer" card.
Plenty of people did genuine voluntary work. Plenty of people worked well beyond their contracted hours. They get a few claps. The rich based abroad get tax breaks.
Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
Yes, I know that.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. He's supposed to be a patriot, so why wouldn't he choose to enrich Britain and her population, at a bit more cost to himself, rather than Singapore?
Because he looked at where his sales were coming from and growing and Singapore made more sense.
Boris sold everyone Global Britain - manufacturing outside Britain is one possible consequence of that.
I know that, but it isn't patriotism. It isn't what the red wall want. They want jobs here in Britain, and they don't want to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson.
You're losing your mind over pre-existing hate unrelated to what is going on here.
Nobody at all has to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson, as a result of this.
Of course they do.
Boris changes the rules so that less money would flow into the treasury. Less money means more tax.
I'm angry about hypocrisy. It's all very well flying the flag for Britain but it's not okay doing the exact opposite in private.
Boris changed the rules so there was 1 more team working in a single building to try and rapidly build a solution to a pressing problem where people were dying
Yet you clearly think (tax) money is more important than people's lives.
No, Dyson clearly thinks tax money is more important than people's lives.
Nope Dyson knows that he cannot ask people to come to the UK if coming here results in them paying £xx,000 in tax.
He also knows that he needs those people in that building or there is zero point doing the project.
I repeat again you as you are the person complaining that Boris agreed the deal
YOU are more concerned about potentially lost tax revenue than you are about people's lives...
This is laughable.
Dyson can clearly indemnify his workers against a potential increased tax liability.
He chose to instead use his private connections, not available to others, to have the law changed.
The choice isn't the deal or nothing, the choice is the deal vs Dyson indemnifying his own workers.
He chose to delegate that indemnification to the UK treasury, to me and to you.
This is bullshit, you don't know how personal taxation works. How would Dyson indemnify his workers from taxes on earnings they'd be liable not from his payments to them?
Through a contract.
How?
Personal taxation applies to more than just wages. How would he indemnify them from that. Show your workings.
What on earth are you talking about? It would be simple for Dyson to contract to pay a bonus grossed up to cover tax liability arising that would not otherwise.
Exactly how much do you know about Tax and employment law?
Not loads. How much do you know about Tax and employment law?
There may be some public policy bar against such a thing but in high likelihood the only objection is unwillingness to pay.
In Spain I believe footballers are guaranteed a certain amount of post-tax income in their contacts so the gross value will vary depending on the current statutory tax regime.
Clearly more than you do.
So 2 quick questions -
If say I sold none primary residency property while sat in Singapore - what capital gains tax do I need to pay? What tax would I need to pay if I was in the UK for over 90 days.
On dividend payments what happens for all dividends in the past 5 years were you to accidently spend more than 90 days in the UK..
Precisely.
You and I often don't see eye to eye on many things, but the tax system is not simple enough to just "gross up" wages and that's the end of the matter.
Yes, it is. It's an entire can of worms and probably very expensive, but it's simple enough.
Capital Gains Tax becomes due that would not have otherwise, worth £X.
The Treasury therefore would have been entitled to £X.
An employer can pay £Y to the employee, £Y being £X + whatever personal taxation is due, leaving £X remaining, to cover that Capital Gains Tax liability.
However instead, the Treasury have agreed to forgo that £X, cos mates.
The employer has no business knowing what their employees personal taxation is, what CGT they have or anything else.
The Treasury would never had had £X if the employees hadn't come here in the first place. The Treasury has not foregone anything, they've just not made an artificial windfall they should never have had from asking people who don't live here to come here to help the country out.
This isn't unheard of. Like I said, certain Spanish footballers have a contractually agreed net sum, so their gross salary varies depending on the statutory tax rates in Spain.
Absolutely damn right, during a pandemic you do whatever it takes to get the medical equipment we need.
You'd rather people die than Boris does his job wouldn't you?
Those deaths would have been on James Dyson.
The absolute gall of you people defending him for putting his own (despicable) tax arrangements above people's lives.
Sums up everything that is wrong with 21st century capitalism.
You what?
If employees working in and based in Singapore had stayed in Singapore, rather than coming to the UK and working not-for-profit to save lives in the UK, then how would that have put deaths on his head?
"I refuse to come to my own country and save lives of my compatriots unless you change the law to protect my tax arrangements, Boris".
Imagine someone actually saying that.
Then imagine defending someone who said that.
Christ on a bike, there's no morals left whatsoever.
I thought these people were supposed to believe in Britain and the British people?
Imagine defending a position where you'd rather watch people die than give a tax break to the person who could save their lives.
Oh, wait. I don't have to imagine.
If Dyson employees were unwilling to come back to the UK to help the nation during a pandemic, I'm sure there were plenty of companies and employees in the UK who would have been wiling to do the work.
Why does the work have to come from Boris's mates?
Because "his mates" are experts in their field who were offering to help the country not for profit. 🤦♂️
During a pandemic it isn't wise to turn down offers to help from those who know what they're talking about. Especially when they're doing so not for profit.
Of all the things to whinge about, this is scraping the barrel.
Neither JCB nor Dyson are expert in medical equipment. Dyson doesn't even make very good vacuum cleaners, frankly. I had one of their handheld ones and it is very badly designed and no better than others. Never again will I pay money for their vacuums.
People and companies who base themselves abroad to save money and whose first response in a pandemic is to worry about paying a bit more tax when others are losing their entire livelihoods and businesses do not get to play the "I'm a patriotic volunteer" card.
Plenty of people did genuine voluntary work. Plenty of people worked well beyond their contracted hours. They get a few claps. The rich based abroad get tax breaks.
Cf the tax hit David Niven took to come back and fight the second World War without having a quiet word with Churchill (whom he knew) about it.
Less subsidies for home owners and especially landlords.
What subsidies do landlords get? Purchasing a series of properties for rent now is not a particularly financially viable opportunity. Problems with stamp duty and not been allowed to account for loan interest as an expense now make quite thin margins.
The money in renting has come from buying up houses pre boom and bathing in capital appreciation.
You don't think capital appreciation has anything to do with QE, HTB or Govt mortgage guarantees, stamp duty holidays or bailing out the banks to prevent them mass selling housing stock? Ok!
Also housing benefit artificially inflates rent and creates a guaranteed floor for landlords.
I think HTB for New Builds has suppressed house price rises by encouraging new homes to be built, increasing the supply of homes, thus decreasing the long-term price of homes.
NHB (new homes bonus) has financially incentivised councils to facilitate new builds, and doubly so for affordable new builds.
Well well, this is quite a significant correction. Three months' worth of independence polling from Savanta/ComRes came out unweighted instead of weighted. Actual support for independence was lower than quoted
Dec 2020 was reported as 52% pro-independence, but was actually 49%. Jan 2021 reported as 51%, actually 47%. Feb 2021 reported as 47%, actually 43%. These are narrative-changing differences.
Absolutely damn right, during a pandemic you do whatever it takes to get the medical equipment we need.
You'd rather people die than Boris does his job wouldn't you?
Those deaths would have been on James Dyson.
The absolute gall of you people defending him for putting his own (despicable) tax arrangements above people's lives.
Sums up everything that is wrong with 21st century capitalism.
You what?
If employees working in and based in Singapore had stayed in Singapore, rather than coming to the UK and working not-for-profit to save lives in the UK, then how would that have put deaths on his head?
"I refuse to come to my own country and save lives of my compatriots unless you change the law to protect my tax arrangements, Boris".
Imagine someone actually saying that.
Then imagine defending someone who said that.
Christ on a bike, there's no morals left whatsoever.
I thought these people were supposed to believe in Britain and the British people?
Imagine defending a position where you'd rather watch people die than give a tax break to the person who could save their lives.
Oh, wait. I don't have to imagine.
If Dyson employees were unwilling to come back to the UK to help the nation during a pandemic, I'm sure there were plenty of companies and employees in the UK who would have been wiling to do the work.
Why does the work have to come from Boris's mates?
Because "his mates" are experts in their field who were offering to help the country not for profit. 🤦♂️
During a pandemic it isn't wise to turn down offers to help from those who know what they're talking about. Especially when they're doing so not for profit.
Of all the things to whinge about, this is scraping the barrel.
Neither JCB nor Dyson are expert in medical equipment. Dyson doesn't even make very good vacuum cleaners, frankly. I had one of their handheld ones and it is very badly designed and no better than others. Never again will I pay money for their vacuums.
People and companies who base themselves abroad to save money and whose first response in a pandemic is to worry about paying a bit more tax when others are losing their entire livelihoods and businesses do not get to play the "I'm a patriotic volunteer" card.
Plenty of people did genuine voluntary work. Plenty of people worked well beyond their contracted hours. They get a few claps. The rich based abroad get tax breaks.
Neither JCB, nor Dyson, nor Mercedes are experts in medical equipment.
What they are is experts in manufacturing.
It was not a medical challenge, it was a manufacturing challenge. The manufacturers stepped forward and lo and behold of the many, many manufacturers with no medical expertise who stepped forward we got an excellent CPAP product from Mercedes.
Instead of Mercedes it could have been Dyson and would you then be saying "Neither Mercedes nor JCB are expert in medical equipment" and asking what a Formula 1 company were doing getting involved?
Absolutely damn right, during a pandemic you do whatever it takes to get the medical equipment we need.
You'd rather people die than Boris does his job wouldn't you?
Those deaths would have been on James Dyson.
The absolute gall of you people defending him for putting his own (despicable) tax arrangements above people's lives.
Sums up everything that is wrong with 21st century capitalism.
You what?
If employees working in and based in Singapore had stayed in Singapore, rather than coming to the UK and working not-for-profit to save lives in the UK, then how would that have put deaths on his head?
"I refuse to come to my own country and save lives of my compatriots unless you change the law to protect my tax arrangements, Boris".
Imagine someone actually saying that.
Then imagine defending someone who said that.
Christ on a bike, there's no morals left whatsoever.
I thought these people were supposed to believe in Britain and the British people?
Imagine defending a position where you'd rather watch people die than give a tax break to the person who could save their lives.
Oh, wait. I don't have to imagine.
If Dyson employees were unwilling to come back to the UK to help the nation during a pandemic, I'm sure there were plenty of companies and employees in the UK who would have been wiling to do the work.
Why does the work have to come from Boris's mates?
Because "his mates" are experts in their field who were offering to help the country not for profit. 🤦♂️
During a pandemic it isn't wise to turn down offers to help from those who know what they're talking about. Especially when they're doing so not for profit.
Of all the things to whinge about, this is scraping the barrel.
Neither JCB nor Dyson are expert in medical equipment. Dyson doesn't even make very good vacuum cleaners, frankly. I had one of their handheld ones and it is very badly designed and no better than others. Never again will I pay money for their vacuums.
People and companies who base themselves abroad to save money and whose first response in a pandemic is to worry about paying a bit more tax when others are losing their entire livelihoods and businesses do not get to play the "I'm a patriotic volunteer" card.
Plenty of people did genuine voluntary work. Plenty of people worked well beyond their contracted hours. They get a few claps. The rich based abroad get tax breaks.
Cf the tax hit David Niven took to come back and fight the second World War without having a quiet word with Churchill (whom he knew) about it.
This is my point. Either this is a simple business arrangement, in which case Dyson has no business contacting the Prime Minister in a personal capacity seeking special treatment, or it was a charitable arrangement, in which case Dyson has no business contacting the Prime Minister in a personal capacity seeking special treatment to reduce the charitable contributions he needs to make by palming some off on the British treasury.
Well well, this is quite a significant correction. Three months' worth of independence polling from Savanta/ComRes came out unweighted instead of weighted. Actual support for independence was lower than quoted
Dec 2020 was reported as 52% pro-independence, but was actually 49%. Jan 2021 reported as 51%, actually 47%. Feb 2021 reported as 47%, actually 43%. These are narrative-changing differences.
Interesting and just how could they get it wrong 3 times
Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
Yes, I know that.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. He's supposed to be a patriot, so why wouldn't he choose to enrich Britain and her population, at a bit more cost to himself, rather than Singapore?
Because he looked at where his sales were coming from and growing and Singapore made more sense.
Boris sold everyone Global Britain - manufacturing outside Britain is one possible consequence of that.
I know that, but it isn't patriotism. It isn't what the red wall want. They want jobs here in Britain, and they don't want to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson.
You're losing your mind over pre-existing hate unrelated to what is going on here.
Nobody at all has to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson, as a result of this.
Of course they do.
Boris changes the rules so that less money would flow into the treasury. Less money means more tax.
I'm angry about hypocrisy. It's all very well flying the flag for Britain but it's not okay doing the exact opposite in private.
Boris changed the rules so there was 1 more team working in a single building to try and rapidly build a solution to a pressing problem where people were dying
Yet you clearly think (tax) money is more important than people's lives.
No, Dyson clearly thinks tax money is more important than people's lives.
Nope Dyson knows that he cannot ask people to come to the UK if coming here results in them paying £xx,000 in tax.
He also knows that he needs those people in that building or there is zero point doing the project.
I repeat again you as you are the person complaining that Boris agreed the deal
YOU are more concerned about potentially lost tax revenue than you are about people's lives...
This is laughable.
Dyson can clearly indemnify his workers against a potential increased tax liability.
He chose to instead use his private connections, not available to others, to have the law changed.
The choice isn't the deal or nothing, the choice is the deal vs Dyson indemnifying his own workers.
He chose to delegate that indemnification to the UK treasury, to me and to you.
This is bullshit, you don't know how personal taxation works. How would Dyson indemnify his workers from taxes on earnings they'd be liable not from his payments to them?
Through a contract.
How?
Personal taxation applies to more than just wages. How would he indemnify them from that. Show your workings.
What on earth are you talking about? It would be simple for Dyson to contract to pay a bonus grossed up to cover tax liability arising that would not otherwise.
Exactly how much do you know about Tax and employment law?
Not loads. How much do you know about Tax and employment law?
There may be some public policy bar against such a thing but in high likelihood the only objection is unwillingness to pay.
In Spain I believe footballers are guaranteed a certain amount of post-tax income in their contacts so the gross value will vary depending on the current statutory tax regime.
Clearly more than you do.
So 2 quick questions -
If say I sold none primary residency property while sat in Singapore - what capital gains tax do I need to pay? What tax would I need to pay if I was in the UK for over 90 days.
On dividend payments what happens for all dividends in the past 5 years were you to accidently spend more than 90 days in the UK..
Precisely.
You and I often don't see eye to eye on many things, but the tax system is not simple enough to just "gross up" wages and that's the end of the matter.
Yes, it is. It's an entire can of worms and probably very expensive, but it's simple enough.
Capital Gains Tax becomes due that would not have otherwise, worth £X.
The Treasury therefore would have been entitled to £X.
An employer can pay £Y to the employee, £Y being £X + whatever personal taxation is due, leaving £X remaining, to cover that Capital Gains Tax liability.
However instead, the Treasury have agreed to forgo that £X, cos mates.
The employer has no business knowing what their employees personal taxation is, what CGT they have or anything else.
The Treasury would never had had £X if the employees hadn't come here in the first place. The Treasury has not foregone anything, they've just not made an artificial windfall they should never have had from asking people who don't live here to come here to help the country out.
This isn't unheard of. Like I said, certain Spanish footballers have a contractually agreed net sum, so their gross salary varies depending on the statutory tax rates in Spain.
FFS we're going around in circles. That is only the wages we're talking about. 🤦♂️
Take the Spanish footballers example - Barcelona may pay the tax on Messi's wages, but do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Pepsi? Do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Adidas? Do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Gillette? Do they pay the tax on all his various sponsorship deals he has that they have no business getting involved in? Or just on his wages.
Absolutely damn right, during a pandemic you do whatever it takes to get the medical equipment we need.
You'd rather people die than Boris does his job wouldn't you?
Those deaths would have been on James Dyson.
The absolute gall of you people defending him for putting his own (despicable) tax arrangements above people's lives.
Sums up everything that is wrong with 21st century capitalism.
You what?
If employees working in and based in Singapore had stayed in Singapore, rather than coming to the UK and working not-for-profit to save lives in the UK, then how would that have put deaths on his head?
"I refuse to come to my own country and save lives of my compatriots unless you change the law to protect my tax arrangements, Boris".
Imagine someone actually saying that.
Then imagine defending someone who said that.
Christ on a bike, there's no morals left whatsoever.
I thought these people were supposed to believe in Britain and the British people?
Imagine defending a position where you'd rather watch people die than give a tax break to the person who could save their lives.
Oh, wait. I don't have to imagine.
If Dyson employees were unwilling to come back to the UK to help the nation during a pandemic, I'm sure there were plenty of companies and employees in the UK who would have been wiling to do the work.
Why does the work have to come from Boris's mates?
Because "his mates" are experts in their field who were offering to help the country not for profit. 🤦♂️
During a pandemic it isn't wise to turn down offers to help from those who know what they're talking about. Especially when they're doing so not for profit.
Of all the things to whinge about, this is scraping the barrel.
Neither JCB nor Dyson are expert in medical equipment. Dyson doesn't even make very good vacuum cleaners, frankly. I had one of their handheld ones and it is very badly designed and no better than others. Never again will I pay money for their vacuums.
People and companies who base themselves abroad to save money and whose first response in a pandemic is to worry about paying a bit more tax when others are losing their entire livelihoods and businesses do not get to play the "I'm a patriotic volunteer" card.
Plenty of people did genuine voluntary work. Plenty of people worked well beyond their contracted hours. They get a few claps. The rich based abroad get tax breaks.
Neither JCB, nor Dyson, nor Mercedes are experts in medical equipment.
What they are is experts in manufacturing.
It was not a medical challenge, it was a manufacturing challenge. The manufacturers stepped forward and lo and behold of the many, many manufacturers with no medical expertise who stepped forward we got an excellent CPAP product from Mercedes.
Instead of Mercedes it could have been Dyson and would you then be saying "Neither Mercedes nor JCB are expert in medical equipment" and asking what a Formula 1 company were doing getting involved?
Actually, going back through my notes, it was UCLH who approached Mercedes, via a senior engineer who'd previously left the latter to work for the former. The response from the Mercedes MD is quoted as "do not hesitate to call on the full might of what we can do".
The key to success here seems to have been the partnership between the specialist medical knowledge of the UCLH medical engineering team, and the general engineering and manufacturing brilliance of Mercedes. That seems to have been the key reason why they succeeded and the others didn't. But, while that seems kind of obvious now, it wasn't at the time.
Less subsidies for home owners and especially landlords.
What subsidies do landlords get? Purchasing a series of properties for rent now is not a particularly financially viable opportunity. Problems with stamp duty and not been allowed to account for loan interest as an expense now make quite thin margins.
The money in renting has come from buying up houses pre boom and bathing in capital appreciation.
You don't think capital appreciation has anything to do with QE, HTB or Govt mortgage guarantees, stamp duty holidays or bailing out the banks to prevent them mass selling housing stock? Ok!
Also housing benefit artificially inflates rent and creates a guaranteed floor for landlords.
I think HTB for New Builds has suppressed house price rises by encouraging new homes to be built, increasing the supply of homes, thus decreasing the long-term price of homes.
@noneoftheabove is right. Fundamentally house prices are a function of interest rates/qe - that’s why we need to tax housing/land to make it a less attractive place to park cash, at least until this era of zirp/qe comes to an end.
Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
Yes, I know that.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. He's supposed to be a patriot, so why wouldn't he choose to enrich Britain and her population, at a bit more cost to himself, rather than Singapore?
Because he looked at where his sales were coming from and growing and Singapore made more sense.
Boris sold everyone Global Britain - manufacturing outside Britain is one possible consequence of that.
I know that, but it isn't patriotism. It isn't what the red wall want. They want jobs here in Britain, and they don't want to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson.
You're losing your mind over pre-existing hate unrelated to what is going on here.
Nobody at all has to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson, as a result of this.
Of course they do.
Boris changes the rules so that less money would flow into the treasury. Less money means more tax.
I'm angry about hypocrisy. It's all very well flying the flag for Britain but it's not okay doing the exact opposite in private.
Boris changed the rules so there was 1 more team working in a single building to try and rapidly build a solution to a pressing problem where people were dying
Yet you clearly think (tax) money is more important than people's lives.
No, Dyson clearly thinks tax money is more important than people's lives.
Nope Dyson knows that he cannot ask people to come to the UK if coming here results in them paying £xx,000 in tax.
He also knows that he needs those people in that building or there is zero point doing the project.
I repeat again you as you are the person complaining that Boris agreed the deal
YOU are more concerned about potentially lost tax revenue than you are about people's lives...
This is laughable.
Dyson can clearly indemnify his workers against a potential increased tax liability.
He chose to instead use his private connections, not available to others, to have the law changed.
The choice isn't the deal or nothing, the choice is the deal vs Dyson indemnifying his own workers.
He chose to delegate that indemnification to the UK treasury, to me and to you.
This is bullshit, you don't know how personal taxation works. How would Dyson indemnify his workers from taxes on earnings they'd be liable not from his payments to them?
Through a contract.
How?
Personal taxation applies to more than just wages. How would he indemnify them from that. Show your workings.
What on earth are you talking about? It would be simple for Dyson to contract to pay a bonus grossed up to cover tax liability arising that would not otherwise.
Exactly how much do you know about Tax and employment law?
Not loads. How much do you know about Tax and employment law?
There may be some public policy bar against such a thing but in high likelihood the only objection is unwillingness to pay.
In Spain I believe footballers are guaranteed a certain amount of post-tax income in their contacts so the gross value will vary depending on the current statutory tax regime.
Clearly more than you do.
So 2 quick questions -
If say I sold none primary residency property while sat in Singapore - what capital gains tax do I need to pay? What tax would I need to pay if I was in the UK for over 90 days.
On dividend payments what happens for all dividends in the past 5 years were you to accidently spend more than 90 days in the UK..
Precisely.
You and I often don't see eye to eye on many things, but the tax system is not simple enough to just "gross up" wages and that's the end of the matter.
Yes, it is. It's an entire can of worms and probably very expensive, but it's simple enough.
Capital Gains Tax becomes due that would not have otherwise, worth £X.
The Treasury therefore would have been entitled to £X.
An employer can pay £Y to the employee, £Y being £X + whatever personal taxation is due, leaving £X remaining, to cover that Capital Gains Tax liability.
However instead, the Treasury have agreed to forgo that £X, cos mates.
The employer has no business knowing what their employees personal taxation is, what CGT they have or anything else.
The Treasury would never had had £X if the employees hadn't come here in the first place. The Treasury has not foregone anything, they've just not made an artificial windfall they should never have had from asking people who don't live here to come here to help the country out.
This isn't unheard of. Like I said, certain Spanish footballers have a contractually agreed net sum, so their gross salary varies depending on the statutory tax rates in Spain.
FFS we're going around in circles. That is only the wages we're talking about. 🤦♂️
Take the Spanish footballers example - Barcelona may pay the tax on Messi's wages, but do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Pepsi? Do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Adidas? Do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Gillette? Do they pay the tax on all his various sponsorship deals he has that they have no business getting involved in? Or just on his wages.
Personal taxation is about more than just wages.
So what? It's the same principle, just more onerous.
They didn't provide any ventilators. So why would they have been paid.
I have yet to understand why it was necessary for these people to be physically in the country for more than 90 days to design a ventilator. Does anyone know?
C'mon, 90 days is not a long time to design something like that (to medical safety standards), and in any case it's not just design, it's setting up and supervising high-volume manufacturing.
I know you like to find massive scandals in everything associated with Boris, but this really isn't one.
It was a genuine question. And others have answered it. Thank you to them.
I don't think this is a scandal particularly. My criticism is about the attitude displayed by Dyson rather than anything done by the PM, as you will have seen in my other posts.
One of the difficulties is this, though: the government has spent a hell of a lot on Covid. That will have to be paid for. It is important that everyone pays their fair share, including the very rich.
Can one be utterly confident that this will be this government's approach? The more tax breaks are given to X, Y and Z here, there and everywhere for, doubtless, good reasons individually the more the rest of us will have to pay. There is a risk, is there not, of a perception that the richer and more well-connected you are the more likely you are to get what you want whereas everyone else gets ignored?
Those who rush to defend this government ignore the corrosive effect that a sense of unfairness can create. After all, the main reason people were so outraged at the football hoo-ha of the last few days was the unfairness in some clubs being permanently in the top tier regardless of performance.
Fairness may be difficult to define but ignoring it is foolish. It can trip up governments as well as football owners.
Naughty, you've declined to decline Societas Britannica into the necessary objective genitive: Malleus Societatis Britannicae.
Surely Confederationis?
We had a bit of a discussion about this yesterday: foederatio / confoederatio are both distinctly late Latin, whereas societas is perfectly classical and carries the right kind of political connotation; I could also have added one of the rarer senses of concilium. Remember the Social War.
For those of a more polemical Scottish Nationalist mindset, simple imperium would also have been quite idiomatic...
I might quibble on a couple of minor technicalities but broadly speaking, yes, agreed.
Less subsidies for home owners and especially landlords.
What subsidies do landlords get? Purchasing a series of properties for rent now is not a particularly financially viable opportunity. Problems with stamp duty and not been allowed to account for loan interest as an expense now make quite thin margins.
The money in renting has come from buying up houses pre boom and bathing in capital appreciation.
You don't think capital appreciation has anything to do with QE, HTB or Govt mortgage guarantees, stamp duty holidays or bailing out the banks to prevent them mass selling housing stock? Ok!
Also housing benefit artificially inflates rent and creates a guaranteed floor for landlords.
I think HTB for New Builds has suppressed house price rises by encouraging new homes to be built, increasing the supply of homes, thus decreasing the long-term price of homes.
@noneoftheabove is right. Fundamentally house prices are a function of interest rates/qe - that’s why we need to tax housing/land to make it a less attractive place to park cash, at least until this era of zirp/qe comes to an end.
Yet despite that house price to earnings ratio peaked before QE ever started and when interest rates were 6.5%
House prices are a function of supply and demand and when people are buying house prices for cash then the interest rate isn't not that significant. Buy to let landords, foreign investors in London and many more are not taking out a mortgage to buy homes they are dumping cash they have in homes as an asset - that is not to do with either QE or Interest Rates.
Taxing more foreign investors and buy to let landlords when they buy has seen the amount they're buying things relatively dry up but what its not yet done is get them to sell up. A tax surcharge on homes not lived in by the owner might start to reverse the course we've seen.
Well well, this is quite a significant correction. Three months' worth of independence polling from Savanta/ComRes came out unweighted instead of weighted. Actual support for independence was lower than quoted
Dec 2020 was reported as 52% pro-independence, but was actually 49%. Jan 2021 reported as 51%, actually 47%. Feb 2021 reported as 47%, actually 43%. These are narrative-changing differences.
Interesting and just how could they get it wrong 3 times
Systemic errors in polling are nothing new. Looks like the reporting process got corrupted somehow (spreadsheet error?), and the next time they just copied the method across and didn't bother to check the results properly. Happens all the time.
Well well, this is quite a significant correction. Three months' worth of independence polling from Savanta/ComRes came out unweighted instead of weighted. Actual support for independence was lower than quoted
Dec 2020 was reported as 52% pro-independence, but was actually 49%. Jan 2021 reported as 51%, actually 47%. Feb 2021 reported as 47%, actually 43%. These are narrative-changing differences.
Interesting and just how could they get it wrong 3 times
Systemic errors in polling are nothing new. Looks like the reporting process got corrupted somehow (spreadsheet error?), and the next time they just copied the method across and didn't bother to check the results properly. Happens all the time.
Rather important on an issue as sensitive as this to be accurate, as polls affect narratives
Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
Yes, I know that.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. He's supposed to be a patriot, so why wouldn't he choose to enrich Britain and her population, at a bit more cost to himself, rather than Singapore?
Because he looked at where his sales were coming from and growing and Singapore made more sense.
Boris sold everyone Global Britain - manufacturing outside Britain is one possible consequence of that.
I know that, but it isn't patriotism. It isn't what the red wall want. They want jobs here in Britain, and they don't want to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson.
You're losing your mind over pre-existing hate unrelated to what is going on here.
Nobody at all has to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson, as a result of this.
Of course they do.
Boris changes the rules so that less money would flow into the treasury. Less money means more tax.
I'm angry about hypocrisy. It's all very well flying the flag for Britain but it's not okay doing the exact opposite in private.
Boris changed the rules so there was 1 more team working in a single building to try and rapidly build a solution to a pressing problem where people were dying
Yet you clearly think (tax) money is more important than people's lives.
No, Dyson clearly thinks tax money is more important than people's lives.
Nope Dyson knows that he cannot ask people to come to the UK if coming here results in them paying £xx,000 in tax.
He also knows that he needs those people in that building or there is zero point doing the project.
I repeat again you as you are the person complaining that Boris agreed the deal
YOU are more concerned about potentially lost tax revenue than you are about people's lives...
This is laughable.
Dyson can clearly indemnify his workers against a potential increased tax liability.
He chose to instead use his private connections, not available to others, to have the law changed.
The choice isn't the deal or nothing, the choice is the deal vs Dyson indemnifying his own workers.
He chose to delegate that indemnification to the UK treasury, to me and to you.
This is bullshit, you don't know how personal taxation works. How would Dyson indemnify his workers from taxes on earnings they'd be liable not from his payments to them?
Through a contract.
How?
Personal taxation applies to more than just wages. How would he indemnify them from that. Show your workings.
What on earth are you talking about? It would be simple for Dyson to contract to pay a bonus grossed up to cover tax liability arising that would not otherwise.
Exactly how much do you know about Tax and employment law?
Not loads. How much do you know about Tax and employment law?
There may be some public policy bar against such a thing but in high likelihood the only objection is unwillingness to pay.
In Spain I believe footballers are guaranteed a certain amount of post-tax income in their contacts so the gross value will vary depending on the current statutory tax regime.
Clearly more than you do.
So 2 quick questions -
If say I sold none primary residency property while sat in Singapore - what capital gains tax do I need to pay? What tax would I need to pay if I was in the UK for over 90 days.
On dividend payments what happens for all dividends in the past 5 years were you to accidently spend more than 90 days in the UK..
Precisely.
You and I often don't see eye to eye on many things, but the tax system is not simple enough to just "gross up" wages and that's the end of the matter.
Yes, it is. It's an entire can of worms and probably very expensive, but it's simple enough.
Capital Gains Tax becomes due that would not have otherwise, worth £X.
The Treasury therefore would have been entitled to £X.
An employer can pay £Y to the employee, £Y being £X + whatever personal taxation is due, leaving £X remaining, to cover that Capital Gains Tax liability.
However instead, the Treasury have agreed to forgo that £X, cos mates.
The employer has no business knowing what their employees personal taxation is, what CGT they have or anything else.
The Treasury would never had had £X if the employees hadn't come here in the first place. The Treasury has not foregone anything, they've just not made an artificial windfall they should never have had from asking people who don't live here to come here to help the country out.
This isn't unheard of. Like I said, certain Spanish footballers have a contractually agreed net sum, so their gross salary varies depending on the statutory tax rates in Spain.
FFS we're going around in circles. That is only the wages we're talking about. 🤦♂️
Take the Spanish footballers example - Barcelona may pay the tax on Messi's wages, but do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Pepsi? Do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Adidas? Do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Gillette? Do they pay the tax on all his various sponsorship deals he has that they have no business getting involved in? Or just on his wages.
Personal taxation is about more than just wages.
So what? It's the same principle, just more onerous.
No, it isn't.
Companies can budget for grossing up their own wages, its a fixed cost. No company would ever take on that level of uncapped potential liability.
The only one that could waive the taxes is the Treasury. They did so. Because it was the right thing to do.
Furthermore is there actually evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Furthermore if Dyson hadn't abandoned Britain and British workers and moved their HQ to Singapore, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Believe in Britain my arse.
Dyson moved the manufacturing out of the UK, after permission to extend his site in..... Malmesbury in Wiltshire was refused. He kept other jobs here.
The problem was that the site, as is, was literally too small to expand production.
The refusal was a campaign by the middle/upper class incomers to the neighbourhood, who wanted to prevent *any* development in the area. Since they dominated the council and local politics they got their way.....
I'm not sure what point you're making. Of course the only alternative to manufacturing in Malmesbury, Wiltshire is Singapore.
Believe in Britain.
If you have to start completely afresh (as Dyson was forced to do) - the UK may not be the best place to build a factory.
NIMBYism has consequences - as the saying goes be careful what you wish for - the outcome may not be what you expect.
Yes, I know that.
But that doesn't mean he isn't a hypocrite. He's supposed to be a patriot, so why wouldn't he choose to enrich Britain and her population, at a bit more cost to himself, rather than Singapore?
Because he looked at where his sales were coming from and growing and Singapore made more sense.
Boris sold everyone Global Britain - manufacturing outside Britain is one possible consequence of that.
I know that, but it isn't patriotism. It isn't what the red wall want. They want jobs here in Britain, and they don't want to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson.
You're losing your mind over pre-existing hate unrelated to what is going on here.
Nobody at all has to pay MORE tax because of James Dyson, as a result of this.
Of course they do.
Boris changes the rules so that less money would flow into the treasury. Less money means more tax.
I'm angry about hypocrisy. It's all very well flying the flag for Britain but it's not okay doing the exact opposite in private.
Boris changed the rules so there was 1 more team working in a single building to try and rapidly build a solution to a pressing problem where people were dying
Yet you clearly think (tax) money is more important than people's lives.
No, Dyson clearly thinks tax money is more important than people's lives.
Nope Dyson knows that he cannot ask people to come to the UK if coming here results in them paying £xx,000 in tax.
He also knows that he needs those people in that building or there is zero point doing the project.
I repeat again you as you are the person complaining that Boris agreed the deal
YOU are more concerned about potentially lost tax revenue than you are about people's lives...
This is laughable.
Dyson can clearly indemnify his workers against a potential increased tax liability.
He chose to instead use his private connections, not available to others, to have the law changed.
The choice isn't the deal or nothing, the choice is the deal vs Dyson indemnifying his own workers.
He chose to delegate that indemnification to the UK treasury, to me and to you.
This is bullshit, you don't know how personal taxation works. How would Dyson indemnify his workers from taxes on earnings they'd be liable not from his payments to them?
Through a contract.
How?
Personal taxation applies to more than just wages. How would he indemnify them from that. Show your workings.
What on earth are you talking about? It would be simple for Dyson to contract to pay a bonus grossed up to cover tax liability arising that would not otherwise.
Exactly how much do you know about Tax and employment law?
Not loads. How much do you know about Tax and employment law?
There may be some public policy bar against such a thing but in high likelihood the only objection is unwillingness to pay.
In Spain I believe footballers are guaranteed a certain amount of post-tax income in their contacts so the gross value will vary depending on the current statutory tax regime.
Clearly more than you do.
So 2 quick questions -
If say I sold none primary residency property while sat in Singapore - what capital gains tax do I need to pay? What tax would I need to pay if I was in the UK for over 90 days.
On dividend payments what happens for all dividends in the past 5 years were you to accidently spend more than 90 days in the UK..
Precisely.
You and I often don't see eye to eye on many things, but the tax system is not simple enough to just "gross up" wages and that's the end of the matter.
Yes, it is. It's an entire can of worms and probably very expensive, but it's simple enough.
Capital Gains Tax becomes due that would not have otherwise, worth £X.
The Treasury therefore would have been entitled to £X.
An employer can pay £Y to the employee, £Y being £X + whatever personal taxation is due, leaving £X remaining, to cover that Capital Gains Tax liability.
However instead, the Treasury have agreed to forgo that £X, cos mates.
The employer has no business knowing what their employees personal taxation is, what CGT they have or anything else.
The Treasury would never had had £X if the employees hadn't come here in the first place. The Treasury has not foregone anything, they've just not made an artificial windfall they should never have had from asking people who don't live here to come here to help the country out.
This isn't unheard of. Like I said, certain Spanish footballers have a contractually agreed net sum, so their gross salary varies depending on the statutory tax rates in Spain.
FFS we're going around in circles. That is only the wages we're talking about. 🤦♂️
Take the Spanish footballers example - Barcelona may pay the tax on Messi's wages, but do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Pepsi? Do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Adidas? Do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Gillette? Do they pay the tax on all his various sponsorship deals he has that they have no business getting involved in? Or just on his wages.
Personal taxation is about more than just wages.
So what? It's the same principle, just more onerous.
No, it isn't.
Companies can budget for grossing up their own wages, its a fixed cost. No company would ever take on that level of uncapped potential liability.
The only one that could waive the taxes is the Treasury. They did so. Because it was the right thing to do.
It isn't a fixed cost at all. Tax rates could in theory fluctuate hugely. Just look at France with their 80% thing.
Well well, this is quite a significant correction. Three months' worth of independence polling from Savanta/ComRes came out unweighted instead of weighted. Actual support for independence was lower than quoted
Dec 2020 was reported as 52% pro-independence, but was actually 49%. Jan 2021 reported as 51%, actually 47%. Feb 2021 reported as 47%, actually 43%. These are narrative-changing differences.
Interesting and just how could they get it wrong 3 times
Systemic errors in polling are nothing new. Looks like the reporting process got corrupted somehow (spreadsheet error?), and the next time they just copied the method across and didn't bother to check the results properly. Happens all the time.
Rather important on an issue as sensitive as this to be accurate, as polls affect narratives
Yes, I'm sure they didn't do it on purpose. Still, accidents happen.
Absolutely damn right, during a pandemic you do whatever it takes to get the medical equipment we need.
You'd rather people die than Boris does his job wouldn't you?
Those deaths would have been on James Dyson.
The absolute gall of you people defending him for putting his own (despicable) tax arrangements above people's lives.
Sums up everything that is wrong with 21st century capitalism.
You what?
If employees working in and based in Singapore had stayed in Singapore, rather than coming to the UK and working not-for-profit to save lives in the UK, then how would that have put deaths on his head?
"I refuse to come to my own country and save lives of my compatriots unless you change the law to protect my tax arrangements, Boris".
Imagine someone actually saying that.
Then imagine defending someone who said that.
Christ on a bike, there's no morals left whatsoever.
I thought these people were supposed to believe in Britain and the British people?
Imagine defending a position where you'd rather watch people die than give a tax break to the person who could save their lives.
Oh, wait. I don't have to imagine.
If Dyson employees were unwilling to come back to the UK to help the nation during a pandemic, I'm sure there were plenty of companies and employees in the UK who would have been wiling to do the work.
Why does the work have to come from Boris's mates?
Because "his mates" are experts in their field who were offering to help the country not for profit. 🤦♂️
During a pandemic it isn't wise to turn down offers to help from those who know what they're talking about. Especially when they're doing so not for profit.
Of all the things to whinge about, this is scraping the barrel.
Neither JCB nor Dyson are expert in medical equipment. Dyson doesn't even make very good vacuum cleaners, frankly. I had one of their handheld ones and it is very badly designed and no better than others. Never again will I pay money for their vacuums.
People and companies who base themselves abroad to save money and whose first response in a pandemic is to worry about paying a bit more tax when others are losing their entire livelihoods and businesses do not get to play the "I'm a patriotic volunteer" card.
Plenty of people did genuine voluntary work. Plenty of people worked well beyond their contracted hours. They get a few claps. The rich based abroad get tax breaks.
Neither JCB, nor Dyson, nor Mercedes are experts in medical equipment.
What they are is experts in manufacturing.
It was not a medical challenge, it was a manufacturing challenge. The manufacturers stepped forward and lo and behold of the many, many manufacturers with no medical expertise who stepped forward we got an excellent CPAP product from Mercedes.
Instead of Mercedes it could have been Dyson and would you then be saying "Neither Mercedes nor JCB are expert in medical equipment" and asking what a Formula 1 company were doing getting involved?
Actually, going back through my notes, it was UCLH who approached Mercedes, via a senior engineer who'd previously left the latter to work for the former. The response from the Mercedes MD is quoted as "do not hesitate to call on the full might of what we can do".
The key to success here seems to have been the partnership between the specialist medical knowledge of the UCLH medical engineering team, and the general engineering and manufacturing brilliance of Mercedes. That seems to have been the key reason why they succeeded and the others didn't. But, while that seems kind of obvious now, it wasn't at the time.
Well said.
And I have no idea what medical experts Dyson and others may have been partnering with in the same way as Mercedes had that expertise to rely upon. But I suspect neither do the critics here.
There was a call to arms by the state to get any manufacturer who could get involved, involved. Quite right that the state waives taxes not intended for that purpose to facilitate getting whatever help is needed in. Desperate times call for desperate measures and its nothing in the Covid budget.
Well well, this is quite a significant correction. Three months' worth of independence polling from Savanta/ComRes came out unweighted instead of weighted. Actual support for independence was lower than quoted
Dec 2020 was reported as 52% pro-independence, but was actually 49%. Jan 2021 reported as 51%, actually 47%. Feb 2021 reported as 47%, actually 43%. These are narrative-changing differences.
Interesting and just how could they get it wrong 3 times
Systemic errors in polling are nothing new. Looks like the reporting process got corrupted somehow (spreadsheet error?), and the next time they just copied the method across and didn't bother to check the results properly. Happens all the time.
Rather important on an issue as sensitive as this to be accurate, as polls affect narratives
Kudos for publishing their mistake and taking responsibility.
Rather than, hiding it and getting a big splash for drop in their next poll...
Absolutely damn right, during a pandemic you do whatever it takes to get the medical equipment we need.
You'd rather people die than Boris does his job wouldn't you?
Those deaths would have been on James Dyson.
The absolute gall of you people defending him for putting his own (despicable) tax arrangements above people's lives.
Sums up everything that is wrong with 21st century capitalism.
You what?
If employees working in and based in Singapore had stayed in Singapore, rather than coming to the UK and working not-for-profit to save lives in the UK, then how would that have put deaths on his head?
"I refuse to come to my own country and save lives of my compatriots unless you change the law to protect my tax arrangements, Boris".
Imagine someone actually saying that.
Then imagine defending someone who said that.
Christ on a bike, there's no morals left whatsoever.
I thought these people were supposed to believe in Britain and the British people?
Imagine defending a position where you'd rather watch people die than give a tax break to the person who could save their lives.
Oh, wait. I don't have to imagine.
If Dyson employees were unwilling to come back to the UK to help the nation during a pandemic, I'm sure there were plenty of companies and employees in the UK who would have been wiling to do the work.
Why does the work have to come from Boris's mates?
Because "his mates" are experts in their field who were offering to help the country not for profit. 🤦♂️
During a pandemic it isn't wise to turn down offers to help from those who know what they're talking about. Especially when they're doing so not for profit.
Of all the things to whinge about, this is scraping the barrel.
Neither JCB nor Dyson are expert in medical equipment. Dyson doesn't even make very good vacuum cleaners, frankly. I had one of their handheld ones and it is very badly designed and no better than others. Never again will I pay money for their vacuums.
People and companies who base themselves abroad to save money and whose first response in a pandemic is to worry about paying a bit more tax when others are losing their entire livelihoods and businesses do not get to play the "I'm a patriotic volunteer" card.
Plenty of people did genuine voluntary work. Plenty of people worked well beyond their contracted hours. They get a few claps. The rich based abroad get tax breaks.
Neither JCB, nor Dyson, nor Mercedes are experts in medical equipment.
What they are is experts in manufacturing.
It was not a medical challenge, it was a manufacturing challenge. The manufacturers stepped forward and lo and behold of the many, many manufacturers with no medical expertise who stepped forward we got an excellent CPAP product from Mercedes.
Instead of Mercedes it could have been Dyson and would you then be saying "Neither Mercedes nor JCB are expert in medical equipment" and asking what a Formula 1 company were doing getting involved?
Actually, going back through my notes, it was UCLH who approached Mercedes, via a senior engineer who'd previously left the latter to work for the former. The response from the Mercedes MD is quoted as "do not hesitate to call on the full might of what we can do".
The key to success here seems to have been the partnership between the specialist medical knowledge of the UCLH medical engineering team, and the general engineering and manufacturing brilliance of Mercedes. That seems to have been the key reason why they succeeded and the others didn't. But, while that seems kind of obvious now, it wasn't at the time.
Well said.
And I have no idea what medical experts Dyson and others may have been partnering with in the same way as Mercedes had that expertise to rely upon. But I suspect neither do the critics here.
There was a call to arms by the state to get any manufacturer who could get involved, involved. Quite right that the state waives taxes not intended for that purpose to facilitate getting whatever help is needed in. Desperate times call for desperate measures and its nothing in the Covid budget.
"Desperate times call for desperate measures" is going to be the excuse for giving public money to mates for the next 5 years at least.
Furthermore is there actually evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Companies aren't and never have been responsible for personal taxation. HMRC is. HMRC solved the issue.
You seem to be wanting to create some Byzantine monstrosity just because you hate Dyson on a personal level.
Furthermore is there actually evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Have you not seen the comments everyone who isn't a airy fairy lawyer has said about how the work is best done.
You put everyone in a room together as that improves productivity immeasurably especially when the project has a deadline of yesterday rather than 6-12 months when done.
Furthermore is there actually evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Have you not seen the comments everyone who isn't a airy fairy lawyer has said about how the work is best done.
You put everyone in a room together as that improves productivity immeasurably.
I worked in manufacturing for 6 years. I know how work is best done FFS. This has nothing to do with that.
They didn't provide any ventilators. So why would they have been paid.
I have yet to understand why it was necessary for these people to be physically in the country for more than 90 days to design a ventilator. Does anyone know?
C'mon, 90 days is not a long time to design something like that (to medical safety standards), and in any case it's not just design, it's setting up and supervising high-volume manufacturing.
I know you like to find massive scandals in everything associated with Boris, but this really isn't one.
It was a genuine question. And others have answered it. Thank you to them.
I don't think this is a scandal particularly. My criticism is about the attitude displayed by Dyson rather than anything done by the PM, as you will have seen in my other posts.
One of the difficulties is this, though: the government has spent a hell of a lot on Covid. That will have to be paid for. It is important that everyone pays their fair share, including the very rich.
Can one be utterly confident that this will be this government's approach? The more tax breaks are given to X, Y and Z here, there and everywhere for, doubtless, good reasons individually the more the rest of us will have to pay. There is a risk, is there not, of a perception that the richer and more well-connected you are the more likely you are to get what you want whereas everyone else gets ignored?
Those who rush to defend this government ignore the corrosive effect that a sense of unfairness can create. After all, the main reason people were so outraged at the football hoo-ha of the last few days was the unfairness in some clubs being permanently in the top tier regardless of performance.
Fairness may be difficult to define but ignoring it is foolish. It can trip up governments as well as football owners.
Indeed. Failure to consider fairness was one of the key reasons early management science failed so badly. We are a social animal. We are constantly checking our relationships with others, including a subconscious ledger of who owes what in big picture terms*. And, in the workplace and in society, we are looking for fairness - that on balance people give as much as they take, or get paid broadly in line with what they contribute.
* Think of rounds in pubs. We don't care if we are up or down a couple of rounds, but we all hate the bastard who routinely finds ways to get out of his or her round.
Furthermore is there actually evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Companies aren't and never have been responsible for personal taxation. HMRC is. HMRC solved the issue.
You seem to be wanting to create some Byzantine monstrosity just because you hate Dyson on a personal level.
Like I said, is there evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Would it have been better that we didn’t make this change and he didn’t do the work to try and help out in the pandemic?
It would have been better to have paid taxes due. Once you establish that helping party donors to avoid paying taxes is in the national interest there is little left to say. Remember that in the same period they have zealously gone after UC claimants to recoup years old money which HMRC had just discovered was paid in error.
One rule for the little people, another rule for Tory donors. Yet you insist your friends and party are above reproach when it comes to financial standards.
Taxes due would have been zero if he stayed wherever he lives
He came to help the UK
He asked that those days didn’t count towards the 90 day limit
That really is the sum total of it
No - you are missing the point. No extra tax would have been payable if those coming over had stayed less than 90 days. (Couldn't the engineers have done much of the design back in Singapore? Why was it actually necessary for them to be physically present here?) So this was not necessary in order to allow the ventilator work to be done - on the assumption that they didn't need to stay in the UK for more than 3 months. It was only necessary because it might have prevented those people from later coming to work or visit in the U.K. in this tax year thus taking them over the 90 day limit. That further work might well have been nothing to do with the pandemic. Or it might just have been social visits. So why should it be exempt from tax?
These companies were not doing the government a favour. They weren't acting like a charity or volunteers. They were being paid handsomely for their work. They should price the contract appropriately to take account of their costs, including any tax liabilities, arising from the fact that as a result of their decision, freely taken, they have sought to base themselves and employ people based outside the U.K.
Actions have consequences but all too many rich people like lecturing others about this but do not want to apply this simple principle to themselves. That's what annoys.
Did Dyson bill the Government for the work they did?
I don't think any of the firms working on ventilator systems did.
They didn't provide any ventilators. So why would they have been paid.
I have yet to understand why it was necessary for these people to be physically in the country for more than 90 days to design a ventilator. Does anyone know?
because it a single site can increase team productivity by multiples.
Put it this way, stop for a second and ask yourself this question
Why are the people on here who develop technology all saying it was best to have everyone on site together while the lawyers and accountants are asking what was the point?
It was a genuine question. I am actually in favour of having teams together to bounce ideas off each other etc and discuss. I just don't know how design engineers work and assumed that much of it is done on computers rather than by sitting in a room together.
Furthermore is there actually evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Companies aren't and never have been responsible for personal taxation. HMRC is. HMRC solved the issue.
You seem to be wanting to create some Byzantine monstrosity just because you hate Dyson on a personal level.
Like I said, is there evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Furthermore is there actually evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Companies aren't and never have been responsible for personal taxation. HMRC is. HMRC solved the issue.
You seem to be wanting to create some Byzantine monstrosity just because you hate Dyson on a personal level.
Like I said, is there evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Looks about right, aside from any work which might have been done to it (we've spent about £80k extending, which I reckon has added very roughly £80k to the value).
Absolutely damn right, during a pandemic you do whatever it takes to get the medical equipment we need.
You'd rather people die than Boris does his job wouldn't you?
Those deaths would have been on James Dyson.
The absolute gall of you people defending him for putting his own (despicable) tax arrangements above people's lives.
Sums up everything that is wrong with 21st century capitalism.
You what?
If employees working in and based in Singapore had stayed in Singapore, rather than coming to the UK and working not-for-profit to save lives in the UK, then how would that have put deaths on his head?
"I refuse to come to my own country and save lives of my compatriots unless you change the law to protect my tax arrangements, Boris".
Imagine someone actually saying that.
Then imagine defending someone who said that.
Christ on a bike, there's no morals left whatsoever.
I thought these people were supposed to believe in Britain and the British people?
Imagine defending a position where you'd rather watch people die than give a tax break to the person who could save their lives.
Oh, wait. I don't have to imagine.
If Dyson employees were unwilling to come back to the UK to help the nation during a pandemic, I'm sure there were plenty of companies and employees in the UK who would have been wiling to do the work.
Why does the work have to come from Boris's mates?
Because "his mates" are experts in their field who were offering to help the country not for profit. 🤦♂️
During a pandemic it isn't wise to turn down offers to help from those who know what they're talking about. Especially when they're doing so not for profit.
Of all the things to whinge about, this is scraping the barrel.
Neither JCB nor Dyson are expert in medical equipment. Dyson doesn't even make very good vacuum cleaners, frankly. I had one of their handheld ones and it is very badly designed and no better than others. Never again will I pay money for their vacuums.
People and companies who base themselves abroad to save money and whose first response in a pandemic is to worry about paying a bit more tax when others are losing their entire livelihoods and businesses do not get to play the "I'm a patriotic volunteer" card.
Plenty of people did genuine voluntary work. Plenty of people worked well beyond their contracted hours. They get a few claps. The rich based abroad get tax breaks.
Neither JCB, nor Dyson, nor Mercedes are experts in medical equipment.
What they are is experts in manufacturing.
It was not a medical challenge, it was a manufacturing challenge. The manufacturers stepped forward and lo and behold of the many, many manufacturers with no medical expertise who stepped forward we got an excellent CPAP product from Mercedes.
Instead of Mercedes it could have been Dyson and would you then be saying "Neither Mercedes nor JCB are expert in medical equipment" and asking what a Formula 1 company were doing getting involved?
Actually, going back through my notes, it was UCLH who approached Mercedes, via a senior engineer who'd previously left the latter to work for the former. The response from the Mercedes MD is quoted as "do not hesitate to call on the full might of what we can do".
The key to success here seems to have been the partnership between the specialist medical knowledge of the UCLH medical engineering team, and the general engineering and manufacturing brilliance of Mercedes. That seems to have been the key reason why they succeeded and the others didn't. But, while that seems kind of obvious now, it wasn't at the time.
Well said.
And I have no idea what medical experts Dyson and others may have been partnering with in the same way as Mercedes had that expertise to rely upon. But I suspect neither do the critics here.
There was a call to arms by the state to get any manufacturer who could get involved, involved. Quite right that the state waives taxes not intended for that purpose to facilitate getting whatever help is needed in. Desperate times call for desperate measures and its nothing in the Covid budget.
"Desperate times call for desperate measures" is going to be the excuse for giving public money to mates for the next 5 years at least.
No money was given to anyone.
Not having a windfall tax on people who don't live in this country, for coming at your request to help you out, is not giving money away.
They should have just asked Philip to build the ventilators. He is the fountain of all knowledge after all.
It's perfectly simple. You are not dead because of my faulty ventilator design and I shall now explain why in a series of 200 posts over the next 48 hours.
Mouseprice database (I think) by the looks of it - so not great as it's based on land registry sale prices in the area to work out the increase since your initial purchase and then multiples the last purchase price by that ignoring any and all other factors...
Looks about right, aside from any work which might have been done to it (we've spent about £80k extending, which I reckon has added very roughly £80k to the value).
Thanks. Will be useful when i next remortgage, assuming no crashes !
Furthermore is there actually evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Companies aren't and never have been responsible for personal taxation. HMRC is. HMRC solved the issue.
You seem to be wanting to create some Byzantine monstrosity just because you hate Dyson on a personal level.
Like I said, is there evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
I gave it.
eek gave it.
Others gave it.
You don't want to listen.
I said evidence, not opinions.
Speak to HMRC.
As an employer I file with HMRC a mandated P32 report.
Please show me where on HMRC's P32 report, or any other HMRC records, it gives me space to pay for people's personal taxation on non-employment taxes.
Oh and if I did, would it be a benefit in kind so I'd have to not just pay the tax, but gross up further payments to pay for tax on top of the tax?
Furthermore is there actually evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Companies aren't and never have been responsible for personal taxation. HMRC is. HMRC solved the issue.
You seem to be wanting to create some Byzantine monstrosity just because you hate Dyson on a personal level.
Like I said, is there evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
I gave it.
eek gave it.
Others gave it.
You don't want to listen.
I said evidence, not opinions.
Speak to HMRC.
As an employer I file with HMRC a mandated P32 report.
Please show me where on HMRC's P32 report, or any other HMRC records, it gives me space to pay for people's personal taxation on non-employment taxes.
Oh and if I did, would it be a benefit in kind so I'd have to not just pay the tax, but gross up further payments to pay for tax on top of the tax?
For some reason you're zeroing in on a completely different point.
I'm asking for evidence that the "help" would not have been forthcoming save this exemption. You're talking about HMRC P32 reports. It's weird.
Looks about right, aside from any work which might have been done to it (we've spent about £80k extending, which I reckon has added very roughly £80k to the value).
Weirdly and for no reason it had my place worth twice what next door's identical house is worth. Unfortunately it's certainly wrong on that.
Well well, this is quite a significant correction. Three months' worth of independence polling from Savanta/ComRes came out unweighted instead of weighted. Actual support for independence was lower than quoted
Dec 2020 was reported as 52% pro-independence, but was actually 49%. Jan 2021 reported as 51%, actually 47%. Feb 2021 reported as 47%, actually 43%. These are narrative-changing differences.
Yep, those pushing the 'narrative' of the wheels have come off the indy juggernaut and support for indy takes massive drop during the Salmond enquiry must feel a bit embarrassed. They may of course also feel embarrassed for other reasons.
Would it have been better that we didn’t make this change and he didn’t do the work to try and help out in the pandemic?
It would have been better to have paid taxes due. Once you establish that helping party donors to avoid paying taxes is in the national interest there is little left to say. Remember that in the same period they have zealously gone after UC claimants to recoup years old money which HMRC had just discovered was paid in error.
One rule for the little people, another rule for Tory donors. Yet you insist your friends and party are above reproach when it comes to financial standards.
Taxes due would have been zero if he stayed wherever he lives
He came to help the UK
He asked that those days didn’t count towards the 90 day limit
That really is the sum total of it
No - you are missing the point. No extra tax would have been payable if those coming over had stayed less than 90 days. (Couldn't the engineers have done much of the design back in Singapore? Why was it actually necessary for them to be physically present here?) So this was not necessary in order to allow the ventilator work to be done - on the assumption that they didn't need to stay in the UK for more than 3 months. It was only necessary because it might have prevented those people from later coming to work or visit in the U.K. in this tax year thus taking them over the 90 day limit. That further work might well have been nothing to do with the pandemic. Or it might just have been social visits. So why should it be exempt from tax?
These companies were not doing the government a favour. They weren't acting like a charity or volunteers. They were being paid handsomely for their work. They should price the contract appropriately to take account of their costs, including any tax liabilities, arising from the fact that as a result of their decision, freely taken, they have sought to base themselves and employ people based outside the U.K.
Actions have consequences but all too many rich people like lecturing others about this but do not want to apply this simple principle to themselves. That's what annoys.
Did Dyson bill the Government for the work they did?
I don't think any of the firms working on ventilator systems did.
They didn't provide any ventilators. So why would they have been paid.
I have yet to understand why it was necessary for these people to be physically in the country for more than 90 days to design a ventilator. Does anyone know?
because it a single site can increase team productivity by multiples.
Put it this way, stop for a second and ask yourself this question
Why are the people on here who develop technology all saying it was best to have everyone on site together while the lawyers and accountants are asking what was the point?
It was a genuine question. I am actually in favour of having teams together to bounce ideas off each other etc and discuss. I just don't know how design engineers work and assumed that much of it is done on computers rather than by sitting in a room together.
Someone else explained it well.
SpaceX have everyone in a single place and iteratively build - which is why they now have reusable boosters and fly people into space.
Boeing were given the other tender at the same time. Their first rocket blew up a few weeks back.
Would it have been better that we didn’t make this change and he didn’t do the work to try and help out in the pandemic?
It would have been better to have paid taxes due. Once you establish that helping party donors to avoid paying taxes is in the national interest there is little left to say. Remember that in the same period they have zealously gone after UC claimants to recoup years old money which HMRC had just discovered was paid in error.
One rule for the little people, another rule for Tory donors. Yet you insist your friends and party are above reproach when it comes to financial standards.
Taxes due would have been zero if he stayed wherever he lives
He came to help the UK
He asked that those days didn’t count towards the 90 day limit
That really is the sum total of it
No - you are missing the point. No extra tax would have been payable if those coming over had stayed less than 90 days. (Couldn't the engineers have done much of the design back in Singapore? Why was it actually necessary for them to be physically present here?) So this was not necessary in order to allow the ventilator work to be done - on the assumption that they didn't need to stay in the UK for more than 3 months. It was only necessary because it might have prevented those people from later coming to work or visit in the U.K. in this tax year thus taking them over the 90 day limit. That further work might well have been nothing to do with the pandemic. Or it might just have been social visits. So why should it be exempt from tax?
These companies were not doing the government a favour. They weren't acting like a charity or volunteers. They were being paid handsomely for their work. They should price the contract appropriately to take account of their costs, including any tax liabilities, arising from the fact that as a result of their decision, freely taken, they have sought to base themselves and employ people based outside the U.K.
Actions have consequences but all too many rich people like lecturing others about this but do not want to apply this simple principle to themselves. That's what annoys.
Did Dyson bill the Government for the work they did?
I don't think any of the firms working on ventilator systems did.
They didn't provide any ventilators. So why would they have been paid.
I have yet to understand why it was necessary for these people to be physically in the country for more than 90 days to design a ventilator. Does anyone know?
because it a single site can increase team productivity by multiples.
Put it this way, stop for a second and ask yourself this question
Why are the people on here who develop technology all saying it was best to have everyone on site together while the lawyers and accountants are asking what was the point?
It was a genuine question. I am actually in favour of having teams together to bounce ideas off each other etc and discuss. I just don't know how design engineers work and assumed that much of it is done on computers rather than by sitting in a room together.
Someone else explained it well.
SpaceX have everyone in a single place and iteratively build - which is why they now have reusable boosters and fly people into space.
Boeing were given the other tender at the same time. Their first rocket blew up a few weeks back.
And yet it still hasn't been shown that Dyson would have been unable to supply appropriate employees if the exemption wasn't given.
Not very. Estimate was low and putting in my neighbours with different house types did not produce a different figure. It is just the average price for the postcode.
If it was unnecessary then Matt Hancock wouldn't have been on TV begging companies to help.
Again, you're completely missing the point.
I'm asking if DYSON would have been unable to help if this exemption was refused.
Ask him.
He clearly thought it could be an issue for his employees and like any good employer raised the issue and got it resolved. The Government clearly agreed. Quite right too.
Good employers look after their employees and don't "control" them. You may know better in which case good luck with your staff retention with your employees.
Furthermore is there actually evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Companies aren't and never have been responsible for personal taxation. HMRC is. HMRC solved the issue.
You seem to be wanting to create some Byzantine monstrosity just because you hate Dyson on a personal level.
Like I said, is there evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
I gave it.
eek gave it.
Others gave it.
You don't want to listen.
I said evidence, not opinions.
Speak to HMRC.
As an employer I file with HMRC a mandated P32 report.
Please show me where on HMRC's P32 report, or any other HMRC records, it gives me space to pay for people's personal taxation on non-employment taxes.
Oh and if I did, would it be a benefit in kind so I'd have to not just pay the tax, but gross up further payments to pay for tax on top of the tax?
For some reason you're zeroing in on a completely different point.
I'm asking for evidence that the "help" would not have been forthcoming save this exemption. You're talking about HMRC P32 reports. It's weird.
Where have you said that - up to now you were saying firstly
that it wasn't an issue (the workers should have sucked up and paid the extra tax). and then when we pointed out that wouldn't work that Dyson should pay the tax
And this is all to do something that the UK Government were begging Dyson to work on.
If it was unnecessary then Matt Hancock wouldn't have been on TV begging companies to help.
Again, you're completely missing the point.
I'm asking if DYSON would have been unable to help if this exemption was refused.
Ask him.
He clearly thought it could be an issue for his employees and like any good employer raised the issue and got it resolved. Quite right too.
Good employers look after their employees and don't "control" them.
So it is a fiction. Glad we got there in the end.
Non-fiction. That's why its in the news.
Your ravings that this is wrong and Dyson should have paid people's personal tax liabilities on shares or homes or anything else unrelated is a fiction.
They should have just asked Philip to build the ventilators. He is the fountain of all knowledge after all.
It's perfectly simple. You are not dead because of my faulty ventilator design and I shall now explain why in a series of 200 posts over the next 48 hours.
'However I do apologise if you or a member of your family feel that you are dead.'
Well well, this is quite a significant correction. Three months' worth of independence polling from Savanta/ComRes came out unweighted instead of weighted. Actual support for independence was lower than quoted
Dec 2020 was reported as 52% pro-independence, but was actually 49%. Jan 2021 reported as 51%, actually 47%. Feb 2021 reported as 47%, actually 43%. These are narrative-changing differences.
Much more important is the change in gap. One of those polls goes from a 13 point yes lead to a 4 point yes lead!
Dublin looks set to miss out on hosting Euro 2020 games this summer after the Irish government conceded it does not expect to meet Uefa's demand of filling stadiums to 25% capacity.
Thing is, UEFA won’t care about whether or not 25% should be allowed, only that it will be allowed.
Furthermore is there actually evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Companies aren't and never have been responsible for personal taxation. HMRC is. HMRC solved the issue.
You seem to be wanting to create some Byzantine monstrosity just because you hate Dyson on a personal level.
Like I said, is there evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
I gave it.
eek gave it.
Others gave it.
You don't want to listen.
I said evidence, not opinions.
Speak to HMRC.
As an employer I file with HMRC a mandated P32 report.
Please show me where on HMRC's P32 report, or any other HMRC records, it gives me space to pay for people's personal taxation on non-employment taxes.
Oh and if I did, would it be a benefit in kind so I'd have to not just pay the tax, but gross up further payments to pay for tax on top of the tax?
For some reason you're zeroing in on a completely different point.
I'm asking for evidence that the "help" would not have been forthcoming save this exemption. You're talking about HMRC P32 reports. It's weird.
Where have you said that - up to now you were saying firstly
that it wasn't an issue (the workers should have sucked up and paid the extra tax). and then when we pointed out that wouldn't work that Dyson should pay the tax
And this is all to do something that the UK Government were begging Dyson to work on.
The tax exemption was only "required" if Dyson was unable to help otherwise.
If it was merely a preference that Dyson had this exemption, then that's preferential treatment for a mate and has nothing to do with necessity.
The first is maybe justifiable, the second is cronyism.
Would it have been better that we didn’t make this change and he didn’t do the work to try and help out in the pandemic?
It would have been better to have paid taxes due. Once you establish that helping party donors to avoid paying taxes is in the national interest there is little left to say. Remember that in the same period they have zealously gone after UC claimants to recoup years old money which HMRC had just discovered was paid in error.
One rule for the little people, another rule for Tory donors. Yet you insist your friends and party are above reproach when it comes to financial standards.
Taxes due would have been zero if he stayed wherever he lives
He came to help the UK
He asked that those days didn’t count towards the 90 day limit
That really is the sum total of it
No - you are missing the point. No extra tax would have been payable if those coming over had stayed less than 90 days. (Couldn't the engineers have done much of the design back in Singapore? Why was it actually necessary for them to be physically present here?) So this was not necessary in order to allow the ventilator work to be done - on the assumption that they didn't need to stay in the UK for more than 3 months. It was only necessary because it might have prevented those people from later coming to work or visit in the U.K. in this tax year thus taking them over the 90 day limit. That further work might well have been nothing to do with the pandemic. Or it might just have been social visits. So why should it be exempt from tax?
These companies were not doing the government a favour. They weren't acting like a charity or volunteers. They were being paid handsomely for their work. They should price the contract appropriately to take account of their costs, including any tax liabilities, arising from the fact that as a result of their decision, freely taken, they have sought to base themselves and employ people based outside the U.K.
Actions have consequences but all too many rich people like lecturing others about this but do not want to apply this simple principle to themselves. That's what annoys.
Did Dyson bill the Government for the work they did?
I don't think any of the firms working on ventilator systems did.
They didn't provide any ventilators. So why would they have been paid.
I have yet to understand why it was necessary for these people to be physically in the country for more than 90 days to design a ventilator. Does anyone know?
because it a single site can increase team productivity by multiples.
Put it this way, stop for a second and ask yourself this question
Why are the people on here who develop technology all saying it was best to have everyone on site together while the lawyers and accountants are asking what was the point?
It was a genuine question. I am actually in favour of having teams together to bounce ideas off each other etc and discuss. I just don't know how design engineers work and assumed that much of it is done on computers rather than by sitting in a room together.
Someone else explained it well.
SpaceX have everyone in a single place and iteratively build - which is why they now have reusable boosters and fly people into space.
Boeing were given the other tender at the same time. Their first rocket blew up a few weeks back.
And yet it still hasn't been shown that Dyson would have been unable to supply appropriate employees if the exemption wasn't given.
There is no such thing as appropriate employees when it comes to productization - it will be we need Mark, Bill and Claire.
If it was unnecessary then Matt Hancock wouldn't have been on TV begging companies to help.
Again, you're completely missing the point.
I'm asking if DYSON would have been unable to help if this exemption was refused.
Ask him.
He clearly thought it could be an issue for his employees and like any good employer raised the issue and got it resolved. Quite right too.
Good employers look after their employees and don't "control" them.
So it is a fiction. Glad we got there in the end.
Non-fiction. That's why its in the news.
Your ravings that this is wrong and Dyson should have paid people's personal tax liabilities on shares or homes or anything else unrelated is a fiction.
You've confirmed it was a fiction. It's something you've created to prove your point.
Would it have been better that we didn’t make this change and he didn’t do the work to try and help out in the pandemic?
It would have been better to have paid taxes due. Once you establish that helping party donors to avoid paying taxes is in the national interest there is little left to say. Remember that in the same period they have zealously gone after UC claimants to recoup years old money which HMRC had just discovered was paid in error.
One rule for the little people, another rule for Tory donors. Yet you insist your friends and party are above reproach when it comes to financial standards.
Taxes due would have been zero if he stayed wherever he lives
He came to help the UK
He asked that those days didn’t count towards the 90 day limit
That really is the sum total of it
No - you are missing the point. No extra tax would have been payable if those coming over had stayed less than 90 days. (Couldn't the engineers have done much of the design back in Singapore? Why was it actually necessary for them to be physically present here?) So this was not necessary in order to allow the ventilator work to be done - on the assumption that they didn't need to stay in the UK for more than 3 months. It was only necessary because it might have prevented those people from later coming to work or visit in the U.K. in this tax year thus taking them over the 90 day limit. That further work might well have been nothing to do with the pandemic. Or it might just have been social visits. So why should it be exempt from tax?
These companies were not doing the government a favour. They weren't acting like a charity or volunteers. They were being paid handsomely for their work. They should price the contract appropriately to take account of their costs, including any tax liabilities, arising from the fact that as a result of their decision, freely taken, they have sought to base themselves and employ people based outside the U.K.
Actions have consequences but all too many rich people like lecturing others about this but do not want to apply this simple principle to themselves. That's what annoys.
Did Dyson bill the Government for the work they did?
I don't think any of the firms working on ventilator systems did.
They didn't provide any ventilators. So why would they have been paid.
I have yet to understand why it was necessary for these people to be physically in the country for more than 90 days to design a ventilator. Does anyone know?
because it a single site can increase team productivity by multiples.
Put it this way, stop for a second and ask yourself this question
Why are the people on here who develop technology all saying it was best to have everyone on site together while the lawyers and accountants are asking what was the point?
It was a genuine question. I am actually in favour of having teams together to bounce ideas off each other etc and discuss. I just don't know how design engineers work and assumed that much of it is done on computers rather than by sitting in a room together.
Someone else explained it well.
SpaceX have everyone in a single place and iteratively build - which is why they now have reusable boosters and fly people into space.
Boeing were given the other tender at the same time. Their first rocket blew up a few weeks back.
And yet it still hasn't been shown that Dyson would have been unable to supply appropriate employees if the exemption wasn't given.
There is no such thing as appropriate employees when it comes to productization - it will be we need Mark, Bill and Claire.
What on earth are you talking about? Dyson is a huge company and will have engineers all over the world. There is no specific people will have needed to be involved.
Furthermore is there actually evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
Companies aren't and never have been responsible for personal taxation. HMRC is. HMRC solved the issue.
You seem to be wanting to create some Byzantine monstrosity just because you hate Dyson on a personal level.
Like I said, is there evidence that Dyson would have been unable to help if this tax change wasn't implemented, or is that just a fiction being created to justify it?
I gave it.
eek gave it.
Others gave it.
You don't want to listen.
I said evidence, not opinions.
Speak to HMRC.
As an employer I file with HMRC a mandated P32 report.
Please show me where on HMRC's P32 report, or any other HMRC records, it gives me space to pay for people's personal taxation on non-employment taxes.
Oh and if I did, would it be a benefit in kind so I'd have to not just pay the tax, but gross up further payments to pay for tax on top of the tax?
For some reason you're zeroing in on a completely different point.
I'm asking for evidence that the "help" would not have been forthcoming save this exemption. You're talking about HMRC P32 reports. It's weird.
Where have you said that - up to now you were saying firstly
that it wasn't an issue (the workers should have sucked up and paid the extra tax). and then when we pointed out that wouldn't work that Dyson should pay the tax
And this is all to do something that the UK Government were begging Dyson to work on.
Precisely.
This isn't Dyson looking to make a profit, this is something the UK Government were begging for. So the UK Government cleared the decks to ensure it could happen. Quite right too.
If Gallowgate didn't hate Dyson for entirely unrelated reasons this wouldn't be an issue. Pure hypocrisy.
Not very. Estimate was low and putting in my neighbours with different house types did not produce a different figure. It is just the average price for the postcode.
Mine was bought a couple of years ago and increased by about £30k according to this.
Well well, this is quite a significant correction. Three months' worth of independence polling from Savanta/ComRes came out unweighted instead of weighted. Actual support for independence was lower than quoted
Dec 2020 was reported as 52% pro-independence, but was actually 49%. Jan 2021 reported as 51%, actually 47%. Feb 2021 reported as 47%, actually 43%. These are narrative-changing differences.
Yep, those pushing the 'narrative' of the wheels have come off the indy juggernaut and support for indy takes massive drop during the Salmond enquiry must feel a bit embarrassed. They may of course also feel embarrassed for other reasons.
Would it have been better that we didn’t make this change and he didn’t do the work to try and help out in the pandemic?
It would have been better to have paid taxes due. Once you establish that helping party donors to avoid paying taxes is in the national interest there is little left to say. Remember that in the same period they have zealously gone after UC claimants to recoup years old money which HMRC had just discovered was paid in error.
One rule for the little people, another rule for Tory donors. Yet you insist your friends and party are above reproach when it comes to financial standards.
Taxes due would have been zero if he stayed wherever he lives
He came to help the UK
He asked that those days didn’t count towards the 90 day limit
That really is the sum total of it
No - you are missing the point. No extra tax would have been payable if those coming over had stayed less than 90 days. (Couldn't the engineers have done much of the design back in Singapore? Why was it actually necessary for them to be physically present here?) So this was not necessary in order to allow the ventilator work to be done - on the assumption that they didn't need to stay in the UK for more than 3 months. It was only necessary because it might have prevented those people from later coming to work or visit in the U.K. in this tax year thus taking them over the 90 day limit. That further work might well have been nothing to do with the pandemic. Or it might just have been social visits. So why should it be exempt from tax?
These companies were not doing the government a favour. They weren't acting like a charity or volunteers. They were being paid handsomely for their work. They should price the contract appropriately to take account of their costs, including any tax liabilities, arising from the fact that as a result of their decision, freely taken, they have sought to base themselves and employ people based outside the U.K.
Actions have consequences but all too many rich people like lecturing others about this but do not want to apply this simple principle to themselves. That's what annoys.
Did Dyson bill the Government for the work they did?
I don't think any of the firms working on ventilator systems did.
They didn't provide any ventilators. So why would they have been paid.
I have yet to understand why it was necessary for these people to be physically in the country for more than 90 days to design a ventilator. Does anyone know?
because it a single site can increase team productivity by multiples.
Put it this way, stop for a second and ask yourself this question
Why are the people on here who develop technology all saying it was best to have everyone on site together while the lawyers and accountants are asking what was the point?
It was a genuine question. I am actually in favour of having teams together to bounce ideas off each other etc and discuss. I just don't know how design engineers work and assumed that much of it is done on computers rather than by sitting in a room together.
Someone else explained it well.
SpaceX have everyone in a single place and iteratively build - which is why they now have reusable boosters and fly people into space.
Boeing were given the other tender at the same time. Their first rocket blew up a few weeks back.
And yet it still hasn't been shown that Dyson would have been unable to supply appropriate employees if the exemption wasn't given.
There is no such thing as appropriate employees when it comes to productization - it will be we need Mark, Bill and Claire.
What on earth are you talking about? Dyson is a huge company and will have engineers all over the world. There is no specific people will have needed to be involved.
Oh for fucks sake this is getting ridiculous now.
They should have just got just scraped anyone involved rather than the specific people with the specific expertise needed?
Would it have been better that we didn’t make this change and he didn’t do the work to try and help out in the pandemic?
It would have been better to have paid taxes due. Once you establish that helping party donors to avoid paying taxes is in the national interest there is little left to say. Remember that in the same period they have zealously gone after UC claimants to recoup years old money which HMRC had just discovered was paid in error.
One rule for the little people, another rule for Tory donors. Yet you insist your friends and party are above reproach when it comes to financial standards.
Taxes due would have been zero if he stayed wherever he lives
He came to help the UK
He asked that those days didn’t count towards the 90 day limit
That really is the sum total of it
No - you are missing the point. No extra tax would have been payable if those coming over had stayed less than 90 days. (Couldn't the engineers have done much of the design back in Singapore? Why was it actually necessary for them to be physically present here?) So this was not necessary in order to allow the ventilator work to be done - on the assumption that they didn't need to stay in the UK for more than 3 months. It was only necessary because it might have prevented those people from later coming to work or visit in the U.K. in this tax year thus taking them over the 90 day limit. That further work might well have been nothing to do with the pandemic. Or it might just have been social visits. So why should it be exempt from tax?
These companies were not doing the government a favour. They weren't acting like a charity or volunteers. They were being paid handsomely for their work. They should price the contract appropriately to take account of their costs, including any tax liabilities, arising from the fact that as a result of their decision, freely taken, they have sought to base themselves and employ people based outside the U.K.
Actions have consequences but all too many rich people like lecturing others about this but do not want to apply this simple principle to themselves. That's what annoys.
Did Dyson bill the Government for the work they did?
I don't think any of the firms working on ventilator systems did.
They didn't provide any ventilators. So why would they have been paid.
I have yet to understand why it was necessary for these people to be physically in the country for more than 90 days to design a ventilator. Does anyone know?
because it a single site can increase team productivity by multiples.
Put it this way, stop for a second and ask yourself this question
Why are the people on here who develop technology all saying it was best to have everyone on site together while the lawyers and accountants are asking what was the point?
It was a genuine question. I am actually in favour of having teams together to bounce ideas off each other etc and discuss. I just don't know how design engineers work and assumed that much of it is done on computers rather than by sitting in a room together.
Someone else explained it well.
SpaceX have everyone in a single place and iteratively build - which is why they now have reusable boosters and fly people into space.
Boeing were given the other tender at the same time. Their first rocket blew up a few weeks back.
And yet it still hasn't been shown that Dyson would have been unable to supply appropriate employees if the exemption wasn't given.
There is no such thing as appropriate employees when it comes to productization - it will be we need Mark, Bill and Claire.
What on earth are you talking about? Dyson is a huge company and will have engineers all over the world. There is no specific people will have needed to be involved.
Oh for fucks sake this is getting ridiculous now.
They should have just got just scraped anyone involved rather than the specific people with the specific expertise needed?
There's no point talking with you. Bye.
I'm willing to bet I know more about manufacturing than you.
Not very. Estimate was low and putting in my neighbours with different house types did not produce a different figure. It is just the average price for the postcode.
Mine was bought a couple of years ago and increased by about £30k according to this.
Not very. Estimate was low and putting in my neighbours with different house types did not produce a different figure. It is just the average price for the postcode.
Mine was bought a couple of years ago and increased by about £30k according to this.
It may be right it may not be. But it can't tell the difference between a very extended 5 bedroom house and a 2 bedroom terrace in the same postcode.
Comments
But if you care about football, what about now? Within the fog of this mornings hubris people are unaware how they have been stitched up by these owners. If there is a problem, you prevent the proposed solution, going forward you are now in a position of responsibility for having done that.
Why did fans and government and worst of all UEFA plough in so thoughtlessly? People not awake to the problems football industry facing, they attacked solutions in the mistaken mindset everything is hunky dory.
It’s not hunky dory, and cannot be business as usual. What it needed was counter proposal and discussion. As a Man Utd fan posted on PB last evening, he is not concerned by whatever financial issue the owners have.
My incredulous response reading that was - whaaaaat?
Let me put it like this for those of you who don’t understand the business model. Why do they have parachute payments? It’s to protect football clubs when encouraged to spend above their means to generate competition, who will no longer get that big hand out.
This is exactly the same position all football now finds itself post covid, this is the nub of the problem, to have competition required xx amount of spending that is now being funded by debt in an unsustainable way.
Rather like when Boris ran for London Mayor and Ken dared him to reveal his taxes - and he did and it showed he'd always paid all his taxes in full, not even using basic tax minimisation that others use as standard.
Boris seems successful and relatively simple enough to just get on with it without engaging in sleaze. Which is irritating for those who wish he were sleazy.
After the Ken thing we even got accusations that he was "too lazy" to engage in sleaze.
https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1384829149764890625
You and I often don't see eye to eye on many things, but the tax system is not simple enough to just "gross up" wages and that's the end of the matter.
edit: having googled his wife has since passed away
🚨🏴 | NEW: Nicola Sturgeon says that Scotland didn’t need Westminster’s help with Covid vaccines, and that an independent Scotland would’ve had just as good a rollout
Via @thetimes
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1384830685056229377?s=21
Capital Gains Tax becomes due that would not have otherwise, worth £X.
The Treasury therefore would have been entitled to £X.
An employer can pay £Y to the employee, £Y being £X + whatever personal taxation is due, leaving £X remaining, to cover that Capital Gains Tax liability.
However instead, the Treasury have agreed to forgo that £X, cos mates.
The Treasury would never had had £X if the employees hadn't come here in the first place. The Treasury has not foregone anything, they've just not made an artificial windfall they should never have had from asking people who don't live here to come here to help the country out.
People and companies who base themselves abroad to save money and whose first response in a pandemic is to worry about paying a bit more tax when others are losing their entire livelihoods and businesses do not get to play the "I'm a patriotic volunteer" card.
Plenty of people did genuine voluntary work. Plenty of people worked well beyond their contracted hours. They get a few claps. The rich based abroad get tax breaks.
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1384829546596294656?s=20
Well well, this is quite a significant correction. Three months' worth of independence polling from Savanta/ComRes came out unweighted instead of weighted. Actual support for independence was lower than quoted
Dec 2020 was reported as 52% pro-independence, but was actually 49%.
Jan 2021 reported as 51%, actually 47%.
Feb 2021 reported as 47%, actually 43%.
These are narrative-changing differences.
What they are is experts in manufacturing.
It was not a medical challenge, it was a manufacturing challenge. The manufacturers stepped forward and lo and behold of the many, many manufacturers with no medical expertise who stepped forward we got an excellent CPAP product from Mercedes.
Instead of Mercedes it could have been Dyson and would you then be saying "Neither Mercedes nor JCB are expert in medical equipment" and asking what a Formula 1 company were doing getting involved?
Take the Spanish footballers example - Barcelona may pay the tax on Messi's wages, but do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Pepsi? Do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Adidas? Do they pay the tax on his sponsorship deal with Gillette? Do they pay the tax on all his various sponsorship deals he has that they have no business getting involved in? Or just on his wages.
Personal taxation is about more than just wages.
The key to success here seems to have been the partnership between the specialist medical knowledge of the UCLH medical engineering team, and the general engineering and manufacturing brilliance of Mercedes. That seems to have been the key reason why they succeeded and the others didn't. But, while that seems kind of obvious now, it wasn't at the time.
I don't think this is a scandal particularly. My criticism is about the attitude displayed by Dyson rather than anything done by the PM, as you will have seen in my other posts.
One of the difficulties is this, though: the government has spent a hell of a lot on Covid. That will have to be paid for. It is important that everyone pays their fair share, including the very rich.
Can one be utterly confident that this will be this government's approach? The more tax breaks are given to X, Y and Z here, there and everywhere for, doubtless, good reasons individually the more the rest of us will have to pay. There is a risk, is there not, of a perception that the richer and more well-connected you are the more likely you are to get what you want whereas everyone else gets ignored?
Those who rush to defend this government ignore the corrosive effect that a sense of unfairness can create. After all, the main reason people were so outraged at the football hoo-ha of the last few days was the unfairness in some clubs being permanently in the top tier regardless of performance.
Fairness may be difficult to define but ignoring it is foolish. It can trip up governments as well as football owners.
House prices are a function of supply and demand and when people are buying house prices for cash then the interest rate isn't not that significant. Buy to let landords, foreign investors in London and many more are not taking out a mortgage to buy homes they are dumping cash they have in homes as an asset - that is not to do with either QE or Interest Rates.
Taxing more foreign investors and buy to let landlords when they buy has seen the amount they're buying things relatively dry up but what its not yet done is get them to sell up. A tax surcharge on homes not lived in by the owner might start to reverse the course we've seen.
Companies can budget for grossing up their own wages, its a fixed cost. No company would ever take on that level of uncapped potential liability.
The only one that could waive the taxes is the Treasury. They did so. Because it was the right thing to do.
And I have no idea what medical experts Dyson and others may have been partnering with in the same way as Mercedes had that expertise to rely upon. But I suspect neither do the critics here.
There was a call to arms by the state to get any manufacturer who could get involved, involved. Quite right that the state waives taxes not intended for that purpose to facilitate getting whatever help is needed in. Desperate times call for desperate measures and its nothing in the Covid budget.
Rather than, hiding it and getting a big splash for drop in their next poll...
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
You seem to be wanting to create some Byzantine monstrosity just because you hate Dyson on a personal level.
You put everyone in a room together as that improves productivity immeasurably especially when the project has a deadline of yesterday rather than 6-12 months when done.
* Think of rounds in pubs. We don't care if we are up or down a couple of rounds, but we all hate the bastard who routinely finds ways to get out of his or her round.
eek gave it.
Others gave it.
You don't want to listen.
Not having a windfall tax on people who don't live in this country, for coming at your request to help you out, is not giving money away.
It's perfectly simple. You are not dead because of my faulty ventilator design and I shall now explain why in a series of 200 posts over the next 48 hours.
However, is there actual evidence that help would not be forthcoming otherwise?
If the answer is no, then the "desperate measure" was really unnecessary.
As an employer I file with HMRC a mandated P32 report.
Please show me where on HMRC's P32 report, or any other HMRC records, it gives me space to pay for people's personal taxation on non-employment taxes.
Oh and if I did, would it be a benefit in kind so I'd have to not just pay the tax, but gross up further payments to pay for tax on top of the tax?
I'm asking for evidence that the "help" would not have been forthcoming save this exemption. You're talking about HMRC P32 reports. It's weird.
If it was unnecessary then Matt Hancock wouldn't have been on TV begging companies to help.
SpaceX have everyone in a single place and iteratively build - which is why they now have reusable boosters and fly people into space.
Boeing were given the other tender at the same time. Their first rocket blew up a few weeks back.
If it was unnecessary then Matt Hancock wouldn't have been on TV begging companies to help.
I'm asking if DYSON would have been unable to help if this exemption was refused.
He clearly thought it could be an issue for his employees and like any good employer raised the issue and got it resolved. The Government clearly agreed. Quite right too.
Good employers look after their employees and don't "control" them. You may know better in which case good luck with your staff retention with your employees.
that it wasn't an issue (the workers should have sucked up and paid the extra tax).
and then when we pointed out that wouldn't work that Dyson should pay the tax
And this is all to do something that the UK Government were begging Dyson to work on.
Your ravings that this is wrong and Dyson should have paid people's personal tax liabilities on shares or homes or anything else unrelated is a fiction.
ComRes absolutely fucked it
Dublin looks set to miss out on hosting Euro 2020 games this summer after the Irish government conceded it does not expect to meet Uefa's demand of filling stadiums to 25% capacity.
Thing is, UEFA won’t care about whether or not 25% should be allowed, only that it will be allowed.
If it was merely a preference that Dyson had this exemption, then that's preferential treatment for a mate and has nothing to do with necessity.
The first is maybe justifiable, the second is cronyism.
Thank you.
There's your answer...
This isn't Dyson looking to make a profit, this is something the UK Government were begging for. So the UK Government cleared the decks to ensure it could happen. Quite right too.
If Gallowgate didn't hate Dyson for entirely unrelated reasons this wouldn't be an issue. Pure hypocrisy.
They should have just got just scraped anyone involved rather than the specific people with the specific expertise needed?
There's no point talking with you. Bye.
1st 13,280
2nd 11,631
Did any other manufacturer wish / need to bring particular individuals into the UK and so asked for the same tax exemption?
That actually is the question..
OOPS