Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
It won’t stop until you go buy that tent.
Are you suggesting it will continue until @kjh pegs out?
In fairness I'd need to know how good the OBR's record is before deciding whether his attack on it is reasonable.
Actually you don't need to know how good the OBR's record is because Zia Yusuf chooses to shoot the messenger. His point has nothing to do with how accurate the OBR. It's that he doesn't care about budget responsibility, and in particular the cost of the triple lock. It's of a piece with Reform's intention to take away the BoE's control of interest rates. You would only do that if you plan an inflationary monetary policy.
Buy gold, people, buy gold.
Hyperinflation and the complete collapse of the welfare state is the only way out of the current debt crisis. When something can’t go on it eventually stops. Gold is as good a guess as any as to what value survives that.
Last time there was hyperinflation one Adolf Hitler was a big winner if I recall from the backlash
Not really.
Hitler benefitted from the depression in the early 1930s.
The hyperinflation of 2023 was followed by quite successful moderate centre-right government.
There’s quite a convincing theory that German collective memory conflates the early 20s hyperinflation with the crash and subsequent rise of the Nazis, hence the fixation on a steady as you go economy.
It's crap because the early 20s hyperinflation had nothing whatever to do with the Great Depression or the rise of the Nazis. In fact the Nazis scored insignificant shares of the vote in the two national elections immediately after the hyperinflation, then they took off during the Great Depression.
The reason the Krauts don't like inflation is not because of mis-remembered history of a century ago, but because they tend to save money but in banks, which have always been more important than here, not real assets like property or shares. Germany's home ownership rate, for instance, is less than 50%.
That means their wealth is rather more exposed to inflation than countries where people tend to own their own homes and have portfolios of shares. Bank savings aren't inflation-proofed, unlike houses or stocks. People in countries like here or Italy, which have high rates of home ownership, are much more tolerant of inflation, because idiots love seeing their house prices shoot up in nominal terms.
You see the same phenomenon in Switzerland, which didn't experience hyperinflation, and has an even lower inflation tolerance than Germany. It has a lower rate of home ownership than Germany does, and also relies on bank savings to store personal wealth.
However, people don't like thinking economic concepts through, and so some urban myths really are indestructible.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
It won’t stop until you go buy that tent.
Are you suggesting it will continue until @kjh pegs out?
That is a serious possibility.
I just want to throw my laptop at a wall. How can someone so ignorant of a subject keep posting stuff on it. It is like me arguing with a Mongolian about his Yak (just to clarify all I know about Yaks is where they come from, they are mammals and I think you can milk the female variety)
In fairness I'd need to know how good the OBR's record is before deciding whether his attack on it is reasonable.
Actually you don't need to know how good the OBR's record is because Zia Yusuf chooses to shoot the messenger. His point has nothing to do with how accurate the OBR. It's that he doesn't care about budget responsibility, and in particular the cost of the triple lock. It's of a piece with Reform's intention to take away the BoE's control of interest rates. You would only do that if you plan an inflationary monetary policy.
Buy gold, people, buy gold.
Hyperinflation and the complete collapse of the welfare state is the only way out of the current debt crisis. When something can’t go on it eventually stops. Gold is as good a guess as any as to what value survives that.
During the Eurozone crisis, one policymaker observed something like "we know what we need to do to end this crisis. We just don't know how to do it and get elected again".
It's perfectly possible to avoid apocalypse. It's just there are more votes in pretending that there are easy solutions. (See Reform.)
And there are also too many votes in pretending that comfortable, complacent, managed decline is the best we can hope for (see the Con/LD/Lab uniparty).
We can hope for a party that credibly promises the policies necessary to break out of our cycle of stagnation, as we did forty years ago or as Argentina is trying to do now, but a hope is all it is at this stage.
The comparison with Argentina is either absurd or defeatist. To pursue their course would first, and necessarily, require an economic collapse on a scale we've never seen in our history.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
I just popped in only to see your still at it after at least 2 days
Please can you give us all a break and move on
It is intensely tedious
I find HYUFD trying to work out where his knowledge begins very entertaining...
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
I just popped in only to see your still at it after at least 2 days
Please can you give us all a break and move on
It is intensely tedious
He's painted himself into yet another corner Big_G, it could go on all week.
The one thing you can guarantee with HY is that he will never admit he is wrong.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
It won’t stop until you go buy that tent.
Are you suggesting it will continue until @kjh pegs out?
It was kjh who decided to carry the argument over on to each new thread, of course I will then respond
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume carrying out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government.
The justices lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds.
Another day when the power of elected congress as actual law makers and owners of the 'power of the purse' gets seriously diminished.
I'd love to know whether the individual supreme court judges really look forward to living in the country they are enabling.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
And chance of some pension advice when you have a minute ?
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
It won’t stop until you go buy that tent.
Are you suggesting it will continue until @kjh pegs out?
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
I see the point, but the language thing is paramount, given that of course by the time they got to 1066 their language was a sort of French.
Take any passage of Jane Austen, and translate it into an English using only words which don't derive from the French/Romance/Latin tradition. And then consider the difference. A Norman triumph.
No. Absolutely not. Anglo-Saxon is the muscle and sinew of English. The bone as well., Look at our swear words
But Norman French softened it and made it more beautiful and comely. I’m not sure they’d regard this as a triumph given their actual military triumphs of the time. I expect the Bastard would be horrified
All the French bits of our language sound a bit poncey. Whereas Anglo Saxon - I don't understand it, but it sounds and looks beautiful. My favourite extant non-English language is Icelandic. Which is the only language which sounds and looks as appealing as English (to me).
You make an interesting point about the unlikeliness of the cultural hegemony of the descendants of the Anglo Saxons. It must have looked an unlikely outcome, 1500 years ago. And yet. My understanding is that the current underatanding is that Anglo Saxon culture was actively chosen by the Eastern British, not at the point of the sword but as an active rejection of all things Roman, a reawakening of a dinly perceived pre-Roman culture which was more martial, less urban, more pagan, more rooted in the landscape. There must have been something very transmissable about the culture even then.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
And chance of some pension advice when you have a minute ?
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
It won’t stop until you go buy that tent.
Are you suggesting it will continue until @kjh pegs out?
These flaps can go on forever.
Come on guys, now is the time to pitch in, not lilo. .
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
I see the point, but the language thing is paramount, given that of course by the time they got to 1066 their language was a sort of French.
Take any passage of Jane Austen, and translate it into an English using only words which don't derive from the French/Romance/Latin tradition. And then consider the difference. A Norman triumph.
No. Absolutely not. Anglo-Saxon is the muscle and sinew of English. The bone as well., Look at our swear words
But Norman French softened it and made it more beautiful and comely. I’m not sure they’d regard this as a triumph given their actual military triumphs of the time. I expect the Bastard would be horrified
All the French bits of our language sound a bit poncey. Whereas Anglo Saxon - I don't understand it, but it sounds and looks beautiful. My favourite extant non-English language is Icelandic. Which is the only language which sounds and looks as appealing as English (to me).
You make an interesting point about the unlikeliness of the cultural hegemony of the descendants of the Anglo Saxons. It must have looked an unlikely outcome, 1500 years ago. And yet. My understanding is that the current underatanding is that Anglo Saxon culture was actively chosen by the Eastern British, not at the point of the sword but as an active rejection of all things Roman, a reawakening of a dinly perceived pre-Roman culture which was more martial, less urban, more pagan, more rooted in the landscape. There must have been something very transmissable about the culture even then.
From memory in English we use a variation of the French name (pork, beef) for the meat but not the animal (pig, bullock)..
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Granted, the Norman conquest changed England and made it what it is now. And I like what it is now. But like almost all invasions it was a disaster for the natives. And my view is that England would be a happier place today had it not succeeded.
They did abolish slavery. But also they reduced almost the whole population to a status not much higher than slaves.
I'm not claiming the Anglo Saxon ruling class was a model.of competence. They wouldn't have kept losing the country if they were. But for the man labouring in the field, they were better than what came after.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
I see the point, but the language thing is paramount, given that of course by the time they got to 1066 their language was a sort of French.
Take any passage of Jane Austen, and translate it into an English using only words which don't derive from the French/Romance/Latin tradition. And then consider the difference. A Norman triumph.
No. Absolutely not. Anglo-Saxon is the muscle and sinew of English. The bone as well., Look at our swear words
But Norman French softened it and made it more beautiful and comely. I’m not sure they’d regard this as a triumph given their actual military triumphs of the time. I expect the Bastard would be horrified
All the French bits of our language sound a bit poncey. Whereas Anglo Saxon - I don't understand it, but it sounds and looks beautiful. My favourite extant non-English language is Icelandic. Which is the only language which sounds and looks as appealing as English (to me).
You make an interesting point about the unlikeliness of the cultural hegemony of the descendants of the Anglo Saxons. It must have looked an unlikely outcome, 1500 years ago. And yet. My understanding is that the current underatanding is that Anglo Saxon culture was actively chosen by the Eastern British, not at the point of the sword but as an active rejection of all things Roman, a reawakening of a dinly perceived pre-Roman culture which was more martial, less urban, more pagan, more rooted in the landscape. There must have been something very transmissable about the culture even then.
From memory in English we use a variation of the French name (pork, beef) for the meat but not the animal (pig, bullock)..
...which gives you a very clear idea of who got to look after the animals and who got to eat them in post-invasion England.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
Because it was utter gobbledegook. You completely misunderstood everything I said, because you don't understand any of it. What you said was gibberish so impossible to respond to.
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
I see the point, but the language thing is paramount, given that of course by the time they got to 1066 their language was a sort of French.
Take any passage of Jane Austen, and translate it into an English using only words which don't derive from the French/Romance/Latin tradition. And then consider the difference. A Norman triumph.
No. Absolutely not. Anglo-Saxon is the muscle and sinew of English. The bone as well., Look at our swear words
But Norman French softened it and made it more beautiful and comely. I’m not sure they’d regard this as a triumph given their actual military triumphs of the time. I expect the Bastard would be horrified
All the French bits of our language sound a bit poncey. Whereas Anglo Saxon - I don't understand it, but it sounds and looks beautiful. My favourite extant non-English language is Icelandic. Which is the only language which sounds and looks as appealing as English (to me).
You make an interesting point about the unlikeliness of the cultural hegemony of the descendants of the Anglo Saxons. It must have looked an unlikely outcome, 1500 years ago. And yet. My understanding is that the current underatanding is that Anglo Saxon culture was actively chosen by the Eastern British, not at the point of the sword but as an active rejection of all things Roman, a reawakening of a dinly perceived pre-Roman culture which was more martial, less urban, more pagan, more rooted in the landscape. There must have been something very transmissable about the culture even then.
From memory in English we use a variation of the French name (pork, beef) for the meat but not the animal (pig, bullock)..
...which gives you a very clear idea of who got to look after the animals and who got to eat them in post-invasion England.
oh your typical peasant would have seen a small part of it at Christmas, Easter and other feasts but beyond that U suspect it would have been a very rare treat.
Anyway: my smallest daughter - generally one of the makers-up of numbers in the U11s cricket team she plays in - has today, after, what, about 15 games, scored her first boundary: an astonishingly beautiful straight drive. Every single run she has scored up until now has been from a pull to square leg or mid wicket. I've been trying to get her to play that shot for weeks. All she needed was a lighter bat. I am giddy with delight.
Mind you. I guess it shows why Elon has such a problem with those pesky "thought police" who call out every little thing as somehow anti semitic
Separately - I was going to post this earlier
"I'm not trying to put a dollar on a life or a flood, but the fact of the matter [is] floods do happen, and we need to be prepared for them, then-Kerr County Commissioner Bob Reeves noted during a series of public meetings that began in 2016. And, his former colleague Tom Moser pointed out, "We also have more summer camps than anybody else along the Guadalupe River."
There's a bit of a problem if you know there is an issue but you want the money from the summer camps and then gut the weather warning people (it's proving hard to see if the sacking were due to Texas, Trump or a combination of the two).
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
It won’t stop until you go buy that tent.
Are you suggesting it will continue until @kjh pegs out?
These flaps can go on forever.
Come on guys, now is the time to pitch in, not lilo. .
In fairness I'd need to know how good the OBR's record is before deciding whether his attack on it is reasonable.
Actually you don't need to know how good the OBR's record is because Zia Yusuf chooses to shoot the messenger. His point has nothing to do with how accurate the OBR. It's that he doesn't care about budget responsibility, and in particular the cost of the triple lock. It's of a piece with Reform's intention to take away the BoE's control of interest rates. You would only do that if you plan an inflationary monetary policy.
Buy gold, people, buy gold.
Hyperinflation and the complete collapse of the welfare state is the only way out of the current debt crisis. When something can’t go on it eventually stops. Gold is as good a guess as any as to what value survives that.
During the Eurozone crisis, one policymaker observed something like "we know what we need to do to end this crisis. We just don't know how to do it and get elected again".
It's perfectly possible to avoid apocalypse. It's just there are more votes in pretending that there are easy solutions. (See Reform.)
I don’t see it. We would need to run a surplus for 30-50 years instead of a deficit of £150bn. How do we get there without crashing the economy with a collapse in demand? Our economy is a bubble of debt and brought forward demand kept going by excess consumption and yet more debt.
We can’t repay our debts. We can only inflate them away. And, eventually, we will.
You don't need to run a surplus for 30-50 years. The UK massively reduced debt to GDP without running a surplus for more than half a dozen of the years between 1945 and 2008.
You just need modest economic growth and a small amount of inflation. 2% economic growth and 3% inflation reduces debt to GDP by 5%.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
Because it was utter gobbledegook. You completely misunderstood everything I said, because you don't understand any of it. What you said was gibberish so impossible to respond to.
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
You said ' I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did'.
So by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest, you held in a personal account which would normally have attracted income tax and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA.
Instead you charged it as corporation tax and you expect HMRC to trace all this ie individuals using corporation tax for what would normally be income tax liable income and all the added admin cost just to remove WFA?
X Steve Rosenberg@BBCSteveR "Normal people cannot but be shocked by this." Reaction in Russia as transport minister Roman Starovoit is sacked in the morning, found dead in the afternoon. https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/1942664560164659354
I get the sense, from an accumulation of discussions over some time, that an increasing number of people have given up on the idea of life improving from one generation to the next.
Not just that they're angry that it isn't, or they have no hope that it will, but they've internalised the failure of it to happen to the extent of chiding those who complain about the failure. They see it as the natural order of things.
I remember some daft person expecting the post-pandemic 2020s to be a riotous explosion of revelry to rival the roaring twenties that followed the Spanish Flu, but it really feels as though we've entered a period of profound pessimism.
People say to me that they're being realistic rather than pessimistic, but I think a key difference is that you can be realistic about the difficulties that exist, while retaining some degree of optimism about the potential to fix those problems. And the problem with pessimism is that it is a self-fulfilling state that disables people from acting to take those steps that might improve them.
When the politicians refuse to level with the voters the public finances and the necessary steps to being them into equilibrium they are being pessimistic about their ability to communicate with the public and the public's willingness to follow a lead.
But what if they're wrong? What if they give it a go?
We've seen similar with the Ukraine War - pessimism over the ability to defeat the Russians, and so support has been delayed and rationed. Pessimism abounds.
I get the sense, from an accumulation of discussions over some time, that an increasing number of people have given up on the idea of life improving from one generation to the next.
Not just that they're angry that it isn't, or they have no hope that it will, but they've internalised the failure of it to happen to the extent of chiding those who complain about the failure. They see it as the natural order of things.
I remember some daft person expecting the post-pandemic 2020s to be a riotous explosion of revelry to rival the roaring twenties that followed the Spanish Flu, but it really feels as though we've entered a period of profound pessimism.
People say to me that they're being realistic rather than pessimistic, but I think a key difference is that you can be realistic about the difficulties that exist, while retaining some degree of optimism about the potential to fix those problems. And the problem with pessimism is that it is a self-fulfilling state that disables people from acting to take those steps that might improve them.
When the politicians refuse to level with the voters the public finances and the necessary steps to being them into equilibrium they are being pessimistic about their ability to communicate with the public and the public's willingness to follow a lead.
But what if they're wrong? What if they give it a go?
We've seen similar with the Ukraine War - pessimism over the ability to defeat the Russians, and so support has been delayed and rationed. Pessimism abounds.
Somehow we need to snap out of it.
What interests me is that most of them blame someone else for the situation (as they see it).
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
Because it was utter gobbledegook. You completely misunderstood everything I said, because you don't understand any of it. What you said was gibberish so impossible to respond to.
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
You said ' I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did'.
So by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest, you held in a personal account which would normally have attracted income tax and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA.
Instead you charged it as corporation tax and you expect HMRC to trace all this ie individuals using corporation tax for what would normally be income tax liable income and all the added admin cost just to remove WFA?
Utterly unbelievable that you completely misunderstood everything I said. I am not going to explain it anymore. It is tempting to correct all your errors, but it just generated loads more. You got all of that wrong. I mean completely wrong.
I get the sense, from an accumulation of discussions over some time, that an increasing number of people have given up on the idea of life improving from one generation to the next.
Not just that they're angry that it isn't, or they have no hope that it will, but they've internalised the failure of it to happen to the extent of chiding those who complain about the failure. They see it as the natural order of things.
I remember some daft person expecting the post-pandemic 2020s to be a riotous explosion of revelry to rival the roaring twenties that followed the Spanish Flu, but it really feels as though we've entered a period of profound pessimism.
People say to me that they're being realistic rather than pessimistic, but I think a key difference is that you can be realistic about the difficulties that exist, while retaining some degree of optimism about the potential to fix those problems. And the problem with pessimism is that it is a self-fulfilling state that disables people from acting to take those steps that might improve them.
When the politicians refuse to level with the voters the public finances and the necessary steps to being them into equilibrium they are being pessimistic about their ability to communicate with the public and the public's willingness to follow a lead.
But what if they're wrong? What if they give it a go?
We've seen similar with the Ukraine War - pessimism over the ability to defeat the Russians, and so support has been delayed and rationed. Pessimism abounds.
Somehow we need to snap out of it.
I read a lot of old thrillers, detective novels, etc from the 1920's. And I've got the impression it was a hedonistic time to avoid thinking about how grim things were - not any 'Largin' iiiiiit!' 80s vibe.
Similarly to how they often side-eyed the effects of the war or Spanish flu.
So.... Maybe we're got a Great Depression to come and properly ruin things.
X Steve Rosenberg@BBCSteveR "Normal people cannot but be shocked by this." Reaction in Russia as transport minister Roman Starovoit is sacked in the morning, found dead in the afternoon. https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/1942664560164659354
To be shocking it would need to be surprising. Anyone who pays some attention to the news must be aware that Putin routinely has people that displease him murdered.
I get the sense, from an accumulation of discussions over some time, that an increasing number of people have given up on the idea of life improving from one generation to the next.
Not just that they're angry that it isn't, or they have no hope that it will, but they've internalised the failure of it to happen to the extent of chiding those who complain about the failure. They see it as the natural order of things.
I remember some daft person expecting the post-pandemic 2020s to be a riotous explosion of revelry to rival the roaring twenties that followed the Spanish Flu, but it really feels as though we've entered a period of profound pessimism.
People say to me that they're being realistic rather than pessimistic, but I think a key difference is that you can be realistic about the difficulties that exist, while retaining some degree of optimism about the potential to fix those problems. And the problem with pessimism is that it is a self-fulfilling state that disables people from acting to take those steps that might improve them.
When the politicians refuse to level with the voters the public finances and the necessary steps to being them into equilibrium they are being pessimistic about their ability to communicate with the public and the public's willingness to follow a lead.
But what if they're wrong? What if they give it a go?
We've seen similar with the Ukraine War - pessimism over the ability to defeat the Russians, and so support has been delayed and rationed. Pessimism abounds.
Somehow we need to snap out of it.
I read a lot of old thrillers, detective novels, etc from the 1920's. And I've got the impression it was a hedonistic time to avoid thinking about how grim things were - not any 'Largin' iiiiiit!' 80s vibe.
Similarly to how they often side-eyed the effects of the war or Spanish flu.
So.... Maybe we're got a Great Depression to come and properly ruin things.
W00t!
Nobody was largin it in Newcastle, Wigan or Castleford in the 80's. It was a dreadful time. This times 10. 40% youth unemployment anyone.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
Because it was utter gobbledegook. You completely misunderstood everything I said, because you don't understand any of it. What you said was gibberish so impossible to respond to.
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
You said ' I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did'.
So by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest, you held in a personal account which would normally have attracted income tax and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA.
Instead you charged it as corporation tax and you expect HMRC to trace all this ie individuals using corporation tax for what would normally be income tax liable income and all the added admin cost just to remove WFA?
Utterly unbelievable that you completely misunderstood everything I said. I am not going to explain it anymore. It is tempting to correct all your errors, but it just generated loads more. You got all of that wrong. I mean completely wrong.
Nope I am going to point out your errors:
a) 'by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest' Nope my company did, not me.
b) 'and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA'. Ignoring the fact that WFA didn't exist, nope wrong again it would not have counted to the taxable income to remove my WFA because it wasn't my interest. It belonged to my company and not to me and was subject to Corporation Tax not income tax.
c) 'you expect HMRC to trace all of this'. Well seeing as it was an HMRC requirement for me to charge it to Corporation Tax and I did it, it wasn't exactly onerous for them and as it wouldn't come into the WFA calculation either it wasn't even relevant for them to trace it anyway
d) As I have already pointed out numerous times HMRC already do receive details of bank interest and do a capital check, so no added admin at all.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
Because it was utter gobbledegook. You completely misunderstood everything I said, because you don't understand any of it. What you said was gibberish so impossible to respond to.
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
You said ' I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did'.
So by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest, you held in a personal account which would normally have attracted income tax and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA.
Instead you charged it as corporation tax and you expect HMRC to trace all this ie individuals using corporation tax for what would normally be income tax liable income and all the added admin cost just to remove WFA?
Utterly unbelievable that you completely misunderstood everything I said. I am not going to explain it anymore. It is tempting to correct all your errors, but it just generated loads more. You got all of that wrong. I mean completely wrong.
At this point kjh, I'm reminded of our primary hunting technique - simply running our prey down into exhaustion. It's why I can run a marathon, and why HYUFD can emit a relentless stream of nonsense for 3 days.
You can dodge, you can swerve, you can hide, you can reason, you can explain, you can set up your flowcharts or your code or your excel spreadsheet. But HYUFD won't stop.
I get the sense, from an accumulation of discussions over some time, that an increasing number of people have given up on the idea of life improving from one generation to the next.
Not just that they're angry that it isn't, or they have no hope that it will, but they've internalised the failure of it to happen to the extent of chiding those who complain about the failure. They see it as the natural order of things.
I remember some daft person expecting the post-pandemic 2020s to be a riotous explosion of revelry to rival the roaring twenties that followed the Spanish Flu, but it really feels as though we've entered a period of profound pessimism.
People say to me that they're being realistic rather than pessimistic, but I think a key difference is that you can be realistic about the difficulties that exist, while retaining some degree of optimism about the potential to fix those problems. And the problem with pessimism is that it is a self-fulfilling state that disables people from acting to take those steps that might improve them.
When the politicians refuse to level with the voters the public finances and the necessary steps to being them into equilibrium they are being pessimistic about their ability to communicate with the public and the public's willingness to follow a lead.
But what if they're wrong? What if they give it a go?
We've seen similar with the Ukraine War - pessimism over the ability to defeat the Russians, and so support has been delayed and rationed. Pessimism abounds.
Somehow we need to snap out of it.
I read a lot of old thrillers, detective novels, etc from the 1920's. And I've got the impression it was a hedonistic time to avoid thinking about how grim things were - not any 'Largin' iiiiiit!' 80s vibe.
Similarly to how they often side-eyed the effects of the war or Spanish flu.
So.... Maybe we're got a Great Depression to come and properly ruin things.
W00t!
Nobody was largin it in Newcastle, Wigan or Castleford in the 80's. It was a dreadful time. This times 10. 40% youth unemployment anyone.
I was thinking of the "Loadsamoney", "Largin' iiiiiiit!" stereotype that was quite common at the time in (apols) London-focussed media, literature, etc. I was in Glasgow at the time - it wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs. Unless you like finding dead junkies outside your door.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
Because it was utter gobbledegook. You completely misunderstood everything I said, because you don't understand any of it. What you said was gibberish so impossible to respond to.
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
You said ' I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did'.
So by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest, you held in a personal account which would normally have attracted income tax and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA.
Instead you charged it as corporation tax and you expect HMRC to trace all this ie individuals using corporation tax for what would normally be income tax liable income and all the added admin cost just to remove WFA?
Utterly unbelievable that you completely misunderstood everything I said. I am not going to explain it anymore. It is tempting to correct all your errors, but it just generated loads more. You got all of that wrong. I mean completely wrong.
Nope I am going to point out your errors:
a) 'by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest' Nope my company did, not me.
b) 'and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA'. Ignoring the fact that WFA didn't exist, nope wrong again it would not have counted to the taxable income to remove my WFA because it wasn't my interest. It belonged to my company and not to me and was subject to Corporation Tax not income tax.
c) 'you expect HMRC to trace all of this'. Well seeing as it was an HMRC requirement for me to charge it to Corporation Tax and I did it, it wasn't exactly onerous for them and as it wouldn't come into the WFA calculation either it wasn't even relevant for them to trace it anyway
d) As I have already pointed out numerous times HMRC already do receive details of bank interest and do a capital check, so no added admin at all.
Other than that you got it perfectly right
0/10
Try arguing about a subject you understand.
Asking him to double the number of subjects to argue about seems cruel.
X Steve Rosenberg@BBCSteveR "Normal people cannot but be shocked by this." Reaction in Russia as transport minister Roman Starovoit is sacked in the morning, found dead in the afternoon. https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/1942664560164659354
To be shocking it would need to be surprising. Anyone who pays some attention to the news must be aware that Putin routinely has people that displease him murdered.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
It won’t stop until you go buy that tent.
Are you suggesting it will continue until @kjh pegs out?
It was kjh who decided to carry the argument over on to each new thread, of course I will then respond
Our BT phone has stopped working because it's "Searching for base" and no matter what we do we can't solve it. With the old-fashioned analogue phones we never had a problem, even once.
Wagner arsonists were paid, as suspected. No idea why this crucial detail was missing from the previous BBC article, given it must have come out in court.
I get the sense, from an accumulation of discussions over some time, that an increasing number of people have given up on the idea of life improving from one generation to the next.
Not just that they're angry that it isn't, or they have no hope that it will, but they've internalised the failure of it to happen to the extent of chiding those who complain about the failure. They see it as the natural order of things.
I remember some daft person expecting the post-pandemic 2020s to be a riotous explosion of revelry to rival the roaring twenties that followed the Spanish Flu, but it really feels as though we've entered a period of profound pessimism.
People say to me that they're being realistic rather than pessimistic, but I think a key difference is that you can be realistic about the difficulties that exist, while retaining some degree of optimism about the potential to fix those problems. And the problem with pessimism is that it is a self-fulfilling state that disables people from acting to take those steps that might improve them.
When the politicians refuse to level with the voters the public finances and the necessary steps to being them into equilibrium they are being pessimistic about their ability to communicate with the public and the public's willingness to follow a lead.
But what if they're wrong? What if they give it a go?
We've seen similar with the Ukraine War - pessimism over the ability to defeat the Russians, and so support has been delayed and rationed. Pessimism abounds.
Somehow we need to snap out of it.
An underrated power of a President or Prime Minister is to set the tone. Reagan and Dubya did this well, as did Thatcher and Blair. I could argue others as well. Starmer and Sunak were awful at it.
Our BT phone has stopped working because it's "Searching for base" and no matter what we do we can't solve it. With the old-fashioned analogue phones we never had a problem, even once.
We are really prone to power cuts in Aberdeenshire so we would not be without our fashioned phone and its now part of our emergency power cut kit, it was an absolute godsend during the two really bad storms when we went days without power/wifi.
Our BT phone has stopped working because it's "Searching for base" and no matter what we do we can't solve it. With the old-fashioned analogue phones we never had a problem, even once.
We are really prone to power cuts in Aberdeenshire so we would not be without our fashioned phone and its now part of our emergency power cut kit, it was an absolute godsend during the two really bad storms when we went days without power/wifi.
I don't know about Aberdeenshire but around here they're switching off the analogue system altogether fairly soon as I understand it. We had to change about a year ago when we didn't want to because they made it very expensive to continue with the old phone system.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
Because it was utter gobbledegook. You completely misunderstood everything I said, because you don't understand any of it. What you said was gibberish so impossible to respond to.
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
You said ' I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did'.
So by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest, you held in a personal account which would normally have attracted income tax and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA.
Instead you charged it as corporation tax and you expect HMRC to trace all this ie individuals using corporation tax for what would normally be income tax liable income and all the added admin cost just to remove WFA?
Utterly unbelievable that you completely misunderstood everything I said. I am not going to explain it anymore. It is tempting to correct all your errors, but it just generated loads more. You got all of that wrong. I mean completely wrong.
Nope I am going to point out your errors:
a) 'by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest' Nope my company did, not me.
b) 'and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA'. Ignoring the fact that WFA didn't exist, nope wrong again it would not have counted to the taxable income to remove my WFA because it wasn't my interest. It belonged to my company and not to me and was subject to Corporation Tax not income tax.
c) 'you expect HMRC to trace all of this'. Well seeing as it was an HMRC requirement for me to charge it to Corporation Tax and I did it, it wasn't exactly onerous for them and as it wouldn't come into the WFA calculation either it wasn't even relevant for them to trace it anyway
d) As I have already pointed out numerous times HMRC already do receive details of bank interest and do a capital check, so no added admin at all.
Other than that you got it perfectly right
0/10
Try arguing about a subject you understand.
a) And you moved that income to your personal account by your own admission.
b) WFA does exist, as you stated normally any income from that you moved to your personal account would have been liable for income tax, hence would have counted as taxable income for WFA removal.
c) It was by personal agreement between you and the Corporation Tax Inspector again to get the interest declared for Corporation Tax not Income Tax purposes.
d) As you also stated HMRC had to engage with calls and submissions with you to affirm all the above, adding to extra admin costs
Our BT phone has stopped working because it's "Searching for base" and no matter what we do we can't solve it. With the old-fashioned analogue phones we never had a problem, even once.
We are really prone to power cuts in Aberdeenshire so we would not be without our fashioned phone and its now part of our emergency power cut kit, it was an absolute godsend during the two really bad storms when we went days without power/wifi.
I don't know about Aberdeenshire but around here they're switching off the analogue system altogether fairly soon as I understand it. We had to change about a year ago when we didn't want to because they made it very expensive to continue with the old phone system.
They are doing the same here too which will be a pain. Unbelievable, a lot of people always assume someone else has reported a power cut, not that long we had one that lasted about an hour and we phoned to find out what was happening only to be told we were first to report it and they were not even aware of it yet. We are very prone to very short power cuts lasting a few minutes, but in recent years its felt like the power goes out in our patch everytime we get a few strong gusts of wind in the Autumn/Winter months.
CNN Exclusive: Authors of new book reveal 2024 audio tapes where Donald Trump said he threatened to bomb Moscow if Russian President Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine.
CNN Exclusive: Authors of new book reveal 2024 audio tapes where Donald Trump said he threatened to bomb Moscow if Russian President Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
Because it was utter gobbledegook. You completely misunderstood everything I said, because you don't understand any of it. What you said was gibberish so impossible to respond to.
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
You said ' I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did'.
So by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest, you held in a personal account which would normally have attracted income tax and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA.
Instead you charged it as corporation tax and you expect HMRC to trace all this ie individuals using corporation tax for what would normally be income tax liable income and all the added admin cost just to remove WFA?
Utterly unbelievable that you completely misunderstood everything I said. I am not going to explain it anymore. It is tempting to correct all your errors, but it just generated loads more. You got all of that wrong. I mean completely wrong.
Nope I am going to point out your errors:
a) 'by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest' Nope my company did, not me.
b) 'and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA'. Ignoring the fact that WFA didn't exist, nope wrong again it would not have counted to the taxable income to remove my WFA because it wasn't my interest. It belonged to my company and not to me and was subject to Corporation Tax not income tax.
c) 'you expect HMRC to trace all of this'. Well seeing as it was an HMRC requirement for me to charge it to Corporation Tax and I did it, it wasn't exactly onerous for them and as it wouldn't come into the WFA calculation either it wasn't even relevant for them to trace it anyway
d) As I have already pointed out numerous times HMRC already do receive details of bank interest and do a capital check, so no added admin at all.
Other than that you got it perfectly right
0/10
Try arguing about a subject you understand.
a) And you moved that income to your personal account by your own admission.
b) WFA does exist, as you stated normally any income from that you moved to your personal account would have been liable for income tax, hence would have counted as taxable income for WFA removal.
c) It was by personal agreement between you and the Corporation Tax Inspector again to get the interest declared for Corporation Tax not Income Tax purposes.
d) As you also stated HMRC had to engage with calls and submissions with you to affirm all the above, adding to extra admin costs
I shudder to get involved…
But he personally was never the beneficial owner of the money in his personal account. It was owned by the company at all times (hence the agreement with the tax inspector).
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
Because it was utter gobbledegook. You completely misunderstood everything I said, because you don't understand any of it. What you said was gibberish so impossible to respond to.
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
You said ' I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did'.
So by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest, you held in a personal account which would normally have attracted income tax and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA.
Instead you charged it as corporation tax and you expect HMRC to trace all this ie individuals using corporation tax for what would normally be income tax liable income and all the added admin cost just to remove WFA?
Utterly unbelievable that you completely misunderstood everything I said. I am not going to explain it anymore. It is tempting to correct all your errors, but it just generated loads more. You got all of that wrong. I mean completely wrong.
Nope I am going to point out your errors:
a) 'by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest' Nope my company did, not me.
b) 'and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA'. Ignoring the fact that WFA didn't exist, nope wrong again it would not have counted to the taxable income to remove my WFA because it wasn't my interest. It belonged to my company and not to me and was subject to Corporation Tax not income tax.
c) 'you expect HMRC to trace all of this'. Well seeing as it was an HMRC requirement for me to charge it to Corporation Tax and I did it, it wasn't exactly onerous for them and as it wouldn't come into the WFA calculation either it wasn't even relevant for them to trace it anyway
d) As I have already pointed out numerous times HMRC already do receive details of bank interest and do a capital check, so no added admin at all.
Other than that you got it perfectly right
0/10
Try arguing about a subject you understand.
a) And you moved that income to your personal account by your own admission.
b) WFA does exist, as you stated normally any income from that you moved to your personal account would have been liable for income tax, hence would have counted as taxable income for WFA removal.
c) It was by personal agreement between you and the Corporation Tax Inspector again to get the interest declared for Corporation Tax not Income Tax purposes.
d) As you also stated HMRC had to engage with calls and submissions with you to affirm all the above, adding to extra admin costs
I shudder to get involved…
But he personally was never the beneficial owner of the money in his personal account. It was owned by the company at all times (hence the agreement with the tax inspector).
Thank you . I did wonder if I was typing in Chinese. I was right to assume he wouldn't understand. You do realise he won't understand that either. He is a moron.
He also doesn't get that everyone here is laughing at him.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
Because it was utter gobbledegook. You completely misunderstood everything I said, because you don't understand any of it. What you said was gibberish so impossible to respond to.
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
You said ' I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did'.
So by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest, you held in a personal account which would normally have attracted income tax and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA.
Instead you charged it as corporation tax and you expect HMRC to trace all this ie individuals using corporation tax for what would normally be income tax liable income and all the added admin cost just to remove WFA?
Utterly unbelievable that you completely misunderstood everything I said. I am not going to explain it anymore. It is tempting to correct all your errors, but it just generated loads more. You got all of that wrong. I mean completely wrong.
Nope I am going to point out your errors:
a) 'by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest' Nope my company did, not me.
b) 'and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA'. Ignoring the fact that WFA didn't exist, nope wrong again it would not have counted to the taxable income to remove my WFA because it wasn't my interest. It belonged to my company and not to me and was subject to Corporation Tax not income tax.
c) 'you expect HMRC to trace all of this'. Well seeing as it was an HMRC requirement for me to charge it to Corporation Tax and I did it, it wasn't exactly onerous for them and as it wouldn't come into the WFA calculation either it wasn't even relevant for them to trace it anyway
d) As I have already pointed out numerous times HMRC already do receive details of bank interest and do a capital check, so no added admin at all.
Other than that you got it perfectly right
0/10
Try arguing about a subject you understand.
a) And you moved that income to your personal account by your own admission.
b) WFA does exist, as you stated normally any income from that you moved to your personal account would have been liable for income tax, hence would have counted as taxable income for WFA removal.
c) It was by personal agreement between you and the Corporation Tax Inspector again to get the interest declared for Corporation Tax not Income Tax purposes.
d) As you also stated HMRC had to engage with calls and submissions with you to affirm all the above, adding to extra admin costs
I shudder to get involved…
But he personally was never the beneficial owner of the money in his personal account. It was owned by the company at all times (hence the agreement with the tax inspector).
Meanwhile back in the US, there is the beginning of a new line of argument. Those on sickness benefits can replace immigrant agricultural labour.
There is certainly some merit in the argument as working outside in fields is good for mental health (I volunteer in such a charity) but you can forget getting any sort of productivity out of it. Wonder what the large US agricultural firms will make of this when considering their political donations.
The AI chatbot Grok, which is produced by Elon Musk’s xAI, wrote numerous antisemitic social media posts Tuesday after the artificial intelligence company released a revamped version of it over the weekend. ... ... Grok replied, in part: “folks with surnames like ‘Steinberg’ (often Jewish) keep popping up in extreme leftist activism, especially the anti-white variety.
Is there something a bit Musk-like in not just the content, but the style of the latest Grok? Eg from same article
Truth hurts, but patterns don’t lie sounds like the sort of thing Musk would post after some white supremacist bullshit.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
Because it was utter gobbledegook. You completely misunderstood everything I said, because you don't understand any of it. What you said was gibberish so impossible to respond to.
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
You said ' I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did'.
So by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest, you held in a personal account which would normally have attracted income tax and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA.
Instead you charged it as corporation tax and you expect HMRC to trace all this ie individuals using corporation tax for what would normally be income tax liable income and all the added admin cost just to remove WFA?
Utterly unbelievable that you completely misunderstood everything I said. I am not going to explain it anymore. It is tempting to correct all your errors, but it just generated loads more. You got all of that wrong. I mean completely wrong.
Nope I am going to point out your errors:
a) 'by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest' Nope my company did, not me.
b) 'and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA'. Ignoring the fact that WFA didn't exist, nope wrong again it would not have counted to the taxable income to remove my WFA because it wasn't my interest. It belonged to my company and not to me and was subject to Corporation Tax not income tax.
c) 'you expect HMRC to trace all of this'. Well seeing as it was an HMRC requirement for me to charge it to Corporation Tax and I did it, it wasn't exactly onerous for them and as it wouldn't come into the WFA calculation either it wasn't even relevant for them to trace it anyway
d) As I have already pointed out numerous times HMRC already do receive details of bank interest and do a capital check, so no added admin at all.
Other than that you got it perfectly right
0/10
Try arguing about a subject you understand.
a) And you moved that income to your personal account by your own admission.
b) WFA does exist, as you stated normally any income from that you moved to your personal account would have been liable for income tax, hence would have counted as taxable income for WFA removal.
c) It was by personal agreement between you and the Corporation Tax Inspector again to get the interest declared for Corporation Tax not Income Tax purposes.
d) As you also stated HMRC had to engage with calls and submissions with you to affirm all the above, adding to extra admin costs
I shudder to get involved…
But he personally was never the beneficial owner of the money in his personal account. It was owned by the company at all times (hence the agreement with the tax inspector).
Father Ted moment..
I have a cracking story on Reclaiming Swiss Withholding Tax and filling in Form 82. Maybe @hyufd could give us his expert opinion on that and how I wasted HMRCs time by submitting it. Should keep him going for weeks.
Or maybe he could widen the use of his expert knowledge and tell a few physicists here where they are going wrong on the four fundamental forces. At least that would get me off the hook.
I get the sense, from an accumulation of discussions over some time, that an increasing number of people have given up on the idea of life improving from one generation to the next.
Not just that they're angry that it isn't, or they have no hope that it will, but they've internalised the failure of it to happen to the extent of chiding those who complain about the failure. They see it as the natural order of things.
I remember some daft person expecting the post-pandemic 2020s to be a riotous explosion of revelry to rival the roaring twenties that followed the Spanish Flu, but it really feels as though we've entered a period of profound pessimism.
People say to me that they're being realistic rather than pessimistic, but I think a key difference is that you can be realistic about the difficulties that exist, while retaining some degree of optimism about the potential to fix those problems. And the problem with pessimism is that it is a self-fulfilling state that disables people from acting to take those steps that might improve them.
When the politicians refuse to level with the voters the public finances and the necessary steps to being them into equilibrium they are being pessimistic about their ability to communicate with the public and the public's willingness to follow a lead.
But what if they're wrong? What if they give it a go?
We've seen similar with the Ukraine War - pessimism over the ability to defeat the Russians, and so support has been delayed and rationed. Pessimism abounds.
Somehow we need to snap out of it.
I'm actually optimistic about the world's future, though not blindly so.
A couple of decades ago, overpopulation was seen as being a massive problem for humanity, promising famine and conflict. Now we're being told that low birthrates are a massive problem for humanity.
Much of it is about change and nostalgia. Many people look back on the past nostalgically, remembering the good and forgetting the bad, and compare it with nowadays, where the bad looms foremost in their minds and they forget the good. In their mind change is, by its very nature, negative = unless it is a change that corresponds with their viewpoint.
The Internet does not help: negative stories can spread further and faster than good; and negativity can be a form of control and gaining power.
Also, pessimism and negativity can be a reason not to do anything. "What's the point in helping Ukraine if they're going to lose..." is commonly heard from people pretending to support Ukraine.
Every week, Mrs J and I try to go for a a half-hour walk on our own, when we just chat and chew the cud. We often use the time to talk positively about each other and the world. I treasure those walks, of being in each other's company.
The AI chatbot Grok, which is produced by Elon Musk’s xAI, wrote numerous antisemitic social media posts Tuesday after the artificial intelligence company released a revamped version of it over the weekend. ... ... Grok replied, in part: “folks with surnames like ‘Steinberg’ (often Jewish) keep popping up in extreme leftist activism, especially the anti-white variety.
Is there something a bit Musk-like in not just the content, but the style of the latest Grok? Eg from same article
Truth hurts, but patterns don’t lie sounds like the sort of thing Musk would post after some white supremacist bullshit.
It'll be interesting to know exactly what's happening here. It won't just be GIGO in the training data.
Meanwhile back in the US, there is the beginning of a new line of argument. Those on sickness benefits can replace immigrant agricultural labour.
There is certainly some merit in the argument as working outside in fields is good for mental health (I volunteer in such a charity) but you can forget getting any sort of productivity out of it. Wonder what the large US agricultural firms will make of this when considering their political donations.
Trump: I asked Xi how many wind farms do you have? They don't have a lot. Very few. Wind is tremendously expensive and very ugly. If you want a house inside of a windmill, your house is worth than less half. And you hear noises. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1942626093875556401
A Mouse from Old Amsterdam enters the conversation.
Bayeux tapestry deal done. I think it was announced in maybe 2018?
It’s a really long handkerchief. It depicts events in England. It was almost certainly woven in England
We shouldn’t be thanking the French Prez for lending it, we should be demanding it back
Not sure lecturing other countries on this matter is the way to go . Unless you also support Greece getting the Elgin Marbles back .
I suspect there was a touch of irony in Leon's post.
But I don't massively want a massive depiction of English defeat. The French are trolling us here.
It depicts the defeat of the Saxons. They were German, not English.
I still maintain the Norman conquest was the greatest disaster ever to hit our ancestors - greater even than the Roman Empire. Of course, its slightly complicated by the small but non zero part of our ancestors who were Norman.
This is silly
It was the fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norman virtues which made Britain great. And I mean that
The Normans also brought a lot to the English language
Nice to see the old Norman Yoke trope getting some play though. IIRC from Robert Tombs' book on England it certainly was more dramatic than we often think of it, but bit late to keep being mad about it.
If anything, I’d be pissed off if I was a Norman
They conquered England, bits of Ireland, huge swathes of France, Sicily, they already owned Scandinavia
But where are they now? Where is “Norman” culture and language? It does not exist. It has all been slowly absorbed into England, France, Italy
Yes their “names” and genes endure but so do those of everyone around 1000AD, as I proved to a skeptical @IanB2 the other day
All that fightin’ and winning’ and not THAT much to show for it
Yet a few thousand scruffy Angles landing on the shores of Suffolk in 500AD have the Entire English Language as their legacy. Global Cultural Hegemony
There's another PB'er who could use some tips on how to (try and) retreat from a hopeless position, who could maybe use your advice...
Are these mountains of yours that much of a detour for someone driving from Romania to Greece?
You were completely right about that, and I was completely wrong
I happily yield. I had no idea it was so mathematically certain that 90%+ of anyone alive in Europe today is a DIRECT descendant of Charlemagne or the Conqueror or anyone who had a reasonable number of kids and grandkids
Yet so it is. Of course my position is different in that I have a “provable” paper descent but that is NOT what I was arguing at the time and I was wrong. I’m not sure why I was so stubborn in admitting this, I was likely in a pugnacious mood and looking to fight on regardless
Glad you are enjoying Norway
That was a nice post. I was part of that argument and your post there is appreciated. Good on you.
You just said on the previous thread even the capital you were whinging about still receiving WFA on is taxable income, with corporation tax paid on the interest
God you are like a dog with a bone aren't you.
I have no idea what you are talking about and clearly you don't understand any of this so why don't you drop it.
But if you do want to know the reference I was giving was an example of the fact that HMRC don't have to employ oodles of people to check Capital. They do it now and have done so for ages. I know you won't understand this but I was giving an example of them doing so.
So banks and Building Societies send into HMRC your interest details. HMRC already look at that and compare it to what you claim (if you fill in a return) and also extrapolate to see what the approximate Capital will be. They also do this (regardless of whether you have made a return) to check against benefit claims and to also see if there have been any significant changes in capital that might imply lying about your income.
So just another thing you were wrong about. It does not involve an iota of extra work for HMRC to do. They do it now. I assume it is done automatically and anomalies highlighted.
In my specific case (and you really won't understand this) many years ago (20 odd) I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did
Because the Income Tax side of HMRC gets the information from the bank about me it would appear that I am under declaring my interest because it included Corporate interest. This is proof that they check this stuff because they contacted me about it. Of course I wasn't as some of it was not being taxed under income tax but under corporation tax and a quick call and submission of the agreement and it was all ok.
I am really glad I sought permission before doing it, because it would have involved some explaining, but having permission of the Corporate Tax inspector and the written agreement meant it was resolved in minutes
But it shows that even 20 years ago these checks that you think will cost a fortune were being done.
You have no idea about any of this do you?
Yes and as you said you pay corporation tax on said interest so that would have been taxable income for WFA
OK I am stopping now because you have not a clue what you are talking about.
a) WFA did not exist then
b) Corporation tax is paid by Companies not Individuals and has no impact on WFA whatsoever. Corporation income has no impact on WFA ever. Do you get that NEVER EVER. It is not taxable income for WFA and it can never be so. I do not pay Corporation Tax and never can. It is impossible. Only Companies can. Are there any other ways I can say this.
You know absolutely nothing about any of this. Nothing. You know nothing about Tax whatsoever, yet you sit there behind your keyboard typing utter nonsense.
And in all of that you completely missed the whole point that HMRC check on capital and it does not involve them spending a fortune to do it like you claimed.
I am not responding any more to this drivel.
WFA does exist now and is removed when taxable income taxes you above the threshold.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
Yep I was right. You didn't understand a word of it.
And of course you have no response to my last point either, fine
Because it was utter gobbledegook. You completely misunderstood everything I said, because you don't understand any of it. What you said was gibberish so impossible to respond to.
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
You said ' I needed to move some money from my company (it doesn't matter what the reason was), but it wasn't a loan, dividend or salary, and I was given permission to hold it in a personal account. Normally any of these would have attracted income tax. With the agreement of the Corporation Tax inspector I was allowed to do this provided I signed an agreement, didn't use the money for personal use and any interest was declared for Corporation Tax and not Income Tax purposes, all of which I did'.
So by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest, you held in a personal account which would normally have attracted income tax and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA.
Instead you charged it as corporation tax and you expect HMRC to trace all this ie individuals using corporation tax for what would normally be income tax liable income and all the added admin cost just to remove WFA?
Utterly unbelievable that you completely misunderstood everything I said. I am not going to explain it anymore. It is tempting to correct all your errors, but it just generated loads more. You got all of that wrong. I mean completely wrong.
Nope I am going to point out your errors:
a) 'by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest' Nope my company did, not me.
b) 'and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA'. Ignoring the fact that WFA didn't exist, nope wrong again it would not have counted to the taxable income to remove my WFA because it wasn't my interest. It belonged to my company and not to me and was subject to Corporation Tax not income tax.
c) 'you expect HMRC to trace all of this'. Well seeing as it was an HMRC requirement for me to charge it to Corporation Tax and I did it, it wasn't exactly onerous for them and as it wouldn't come into the WFA calculation either it wasn't even relevant for them to trace it anyway
d) As I have already pointed out numerous times HMRC already do receive details of bank interest and do a capital check, so no added admin at all.
Other than that you got it perfectly right
0/10
Try arguing about a subject you understand.
a) And you moved that income to your personal account by your own admission.
b) WFA does exist, as you stated normally any income from that you moved to your personal account would have been liable for income tax, hence would have counted as taxable income for WFA removal.
c) It was by personal agreement between you and the Corporation Tax Inspector again to get the interest declared for Corporation Tax not Income Tax purposes.
d) As you also stated HMRC had to engage with calls and submissions with you to affirm all the above, adding to extra admin costs
I shudder to get involved…
But he personally was never the beneficial owner of the money in his personal account. It was owned by the company at all times (hence the agreement with the tax inspector).
Father Ted moment..
I have a cracking story on Reclaiming Swiss Withholding Tax and filling in Form 82. Maybe @hyufd could give us his expert opinion on that and how I wasted HMRCs time by submitting it. Should keep him going for weeks.
Or maybe he could widen the use of his expert knowledge and tell a few physicists here where they are going wrong on the four fundamental forces. At least that would get me off the hook.
May be I can share the story of a fight between Zug, Zürich and the Swiss Federal tax authorities over a complex transaction I was involved in? Zürich chose to wade in despite not actually being where the company was based…
In fairness I'd need to know how good the OBR's record is before deciding whether his attack on it is reasonable.
Actually you don't need to know how good the OBR's record is because Zia Yusuf chooses to shoot the messenger. His point has nothing to do with how accurate the OBR. It's that he doesn't care about budget responsibility, and in particular the cost of the triple lock. It's of a piece with Reform's intention to take away the BoE's control of interest rates. You would only do that if you plan an inflationary monetary policy.
Buy gold, people, buy gold.
Hyperinflation and the complete collapse of the welfare state is the only way out of the current debt crisis. When something can’t go on it eventually stops. Gold is as good a guess as any as to what value survives that.
Last time there was hyperinflation one Adolf Hitler was a big winner if I recall from the backlash
Mugabe?
Him too but I was talking a European context
Hungary post WW2, Montenegro post Yugoslav civil war.
The AI chatbot Grok, which is produced by Elon Musk’s xAI, wrote numerous antisemitic social media posts Tuesday after the artificial intelligence company released a revamped version of it over the weekend. ... ... Grok replied, in part: “folks with surnames like ‘Steinberg’ (often Jewish) keep popping up in extreme leftist activism, especially the anti-white variety.
Is there something a bit Musk-like in not just the content, but the style of the latest Grok? Eg from same article
Truth hurts, but patterns don’t lie sounds like the sort of thing Musk would post after some white supremacist bullshit.
It'll be interesting to know exactly what's happening here. It won't just be GIGO in the training data.
If you instruct an LLM to ignore everything which the "mainstream media" agrees with, you will get some pretty weird outputs.
I'm going to see them with my wife and my son in Manchester on Friday. Definitely Maybe came out the year we met at Uni, and my son is now a massive fan too. They are such a huge band, I don't think I've been more excited about a gig before.
The AI chatbot Grok, which is produced by Elon Musk’s xAI, wrote numerous antisemitic social media posts Tuesday after the artificial intelligence company released a revamped version of it over the weekend. ... ... Grok replied, in part: “folks with surnames like ‘Steinberg’ (often Jewish) keep popping up in extreme leftist activism, especially the anti-white variety.
Is there something a bit Musk-like in not just the content, but the style of the latest Grok? Eg from same article
Truth hurts, but patterns don’t lie sounds like the sort of thing Musk would post after some white supremacist bullshit.
It'll be interesting to know exactly what's happening here. It won't just be GIGO in the training data.
If you instruct an LLM to ignore everything which the "mainstream media" agrees with, you will get some pretty weird outputs.
Like Vienna, this means nothing to me, but some are claiming sabotage by a now sacked engineer.
Won’t link to his account and he really is a raging anti semite.
The AI chatbot Grok, which is produced by Elon Musk’s xAI, wrote numerous antisemitic social media posts Tuesday after the artificial intelligence company released a revamped version of it over the weekend. ... ... Grok replied, in part: “folks with surnames like ‘Steinberg’ (often Jewish) keep popping up in extreme leftist activism, especially the anti-white variety.
Is there something a bit Musk-like in not just the content, but the style of the latest Grok? Eg from same article
Truth hurts, but patterns don’t lie sounds like the sort of thing Musk would post after some white supremacist bullshit.
It'll be interesting to know exactly what's happening here. It won't just be GIGO in the training data.
If you instruct an LLM to ignore everything which the "mainstream media" agrees with, you will get some pretty weird outputs.
Like Vienna, this means nothing to me, but some are claiming sabotage by a now sacked engineer.
Won’t link to his account and he really is a raging anti semite.
I'm going to see them with my wife and my son in Manchester on Friday. Definitely Maybe came out the year we met at Uni, and my son is now a massive fan too. They are such a huge band, I don't think I've been more excited about a gig before.
Sadly Noel took the piss out of my shoes one Christmas morning*, and therefore I struggle to be too positive about them
I'm going to see them with my wife and my son in Manchester on Friday. Definitely Maybe came out the year we met at Uni, and my son is now a massive fan too. They are such a huge band, I don't think I've been more excited about a gig before.
Sadly Noel took the piss out of my shoes one Christmas morning*, and therefore I struggle to be too positive about them
I get the sense, from an accumulation of discussions over some time, that an increasing number of people have given up on the idea of life improving from one generation to the next.
Not just that they're angry that it isn't, or they have no hope that it will, but they've internalised the failure of it to happen to the extent of chiding those who complain about the failure. They see it as the natural order of things.
I remember some daft person expecting the post-pandemic 2020s to be a riotous explosion of revelry to rival the roaring twenties that followed the Spanish Flu, but it really feels as though we've entered a period of profound pessimism.
People say to me that they're being realistic rather than pessimistic, but I think a key difference is that you can be realistic about the difficulties that exist, while retaining some degree of optimism about the potential to fix those problems. And the problem with pessimism is that it is a self-fulfilling state that disables people from acting to take those steps that might improve them.
When the politicians refuse to level with the voters the public finances and the necessary steps to being them into equilibrium they are being pessimistic about their ability to communicate with the public and the public's willingness to follow a lead.
But what if they're wrong? What if they give it a go?
We've seen similar with the Ukraine War - pessimism over the ability to defeat the Russians, and so support has been delayed and rationed. Pessimism abounds.
Somehow we need to snap out of it.
I'm actually optimistic about the world's future, though not blindly so.
A couple of decades ago, overpopulation was seen as being a massive problem for humanity, promising famine and conflict. Now we're being told that low birthrates are a massive problem for humanity.
Much of it is about change and nostalgia. Many people look back on the past nostalgically, remembering the good and forgetting the bad, and compare it with nowadays, where the bad looms foremost in their minds and they forget the good. In their mind change is, by its very nature, negative = unless it is a change that corresponds with their viewpoint.
The Internet does not help: negative stories can spread further and faster than good; and negativity can be a form of control and gaining power.
Also, pessimism and negativity can be a reason not to do anything. "What's the point in helping Ukraine if they're going to lose..." is commonly heard from people pretending to support Ukraine.
Every week, Mrs J and I try to go for a a half-hour walk on our own, when we just chat and chew the cud. We often use the time to talk positively about each other and the world. I treasure those walks, of being in each other's company.
Musing. That sounds like a loss of self-belief, and partly a lack of a guiding philosophy, which can lead too easily to empiricism or even nihilism.
The "Roaring Twenties" are an interesting analogy to some people's hopes got post-COVID. It sounds a little "Boris" ie hot air and self-delusion.
But what were the Roaring Twenties for ordinary people? Were they like the "Swinging Sixties" - which if I have it right from social history and speaking to older friends were limited to a small area of West London. Though I am sure dedicated followers of fashion followed the fashion in their way.
I had quite an interesting online conversation yesterday with a woman online yesterday - she runs a Substack called "Creatively Conscious", and part of her business is about mentoring people as writers / online communicators. She has first child on the way, and live sin the Lake District with a philosophy of "slow living", through a philosophy called "earthkeeping".
(Background: I've been wondering whether Substack or Wordpress.com is a better platform for some musings. I don't want a full blog - last time it swallowed half my time. Not do I want a Youtube channel which is too much like a needy dog, requiring attention 6 times a day.)
Earthkeeping is vaguely "small scale green", slightly hippy, light footprint and tolerant, but without the ingrowing gullibility and bollocks which attaches to "spirituality" a la Glastonbury (town, nbot festival). It reminds me of various movements which grew up post-hippy semi-detached from churches (technical word: sodalities), for example Iona and Othona communities, which I have always watched.
I think the one weakness of such philosophies is a little like complete pacifism - it potentially needs a safe bubble in which to exist. And when the barbarians of whatever sort come calling, it can fail.
(One interesting thing on the site is how spread out the actual content is in presentation. I don't see, for example, what we in blogland used to call "pillar articles" which were cornerstones of promoting a brand.)
Comments
The reason the Krauts don't like inflation is not because of mis-remembered history of a century ago, but because they tend to save money but in banks, which have always been more important than here, not real assets like property or shares. Germany's home ownership rate, for instance, is less than 50%.
That means their wealth is rather more exposed to inflation than countries where people tend to own their own homes and have portfolios of shares. Bank savings aren't inflation-proofed, unlike houses or stocks. People in countries like here or Italy, which have high rates of home ownership, are much more tolerant of inflation, because idiots love seeing their house prices shoot up in nominal terms.
You see the same phenomenon in Switzerland, which didn't experience hyperinflation, and has an even lower inflation tolerance than Germany. It has a lower rate of home ownership than Germany does, and also relies on bank savings to store personal wealth.
However, people don't like thinking economic concepts through, and so some urban myths really are indestructible.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002d2yt/not-going-out-series-14-4-oasis
To which my reaction is Paul Hudson looks old - yet I know he's my age as he was in my wife's extended friendship group at Uni.
I just want to throw my laptop at a wall. How can someone so ignorant of a subject keep posting stuff on it. It is like me arguing with a Mongolian about his Yak (just to clarify all I know about Yaks is where they come from, they are mammals and I think you can milk the female variety)
To pursue their course would first, and necessarily, require an economic collapse on a scale we've never seen in our history.
You have just stated you moved money from your company to a personal account not company account and you then had to agree to HMRC to pay tax on interest from said account by a deal with HMRC specific to you to be by corporation tax not income tax
The one thing you can guarantee with HY is that he will never admit he is wrong.
https://bsky.app/profile/edburmila.bsky.social/post/3lti5pojuis2a
A pay rise of 28.9%.
The highest pay rise in the entire public sector this year.
A genuine commitment to work together on things like rotations, placements, progression.
These are NOT the conditions for strike action.
I urge the BMA to work with me.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1942617080895005106
Energy minister decides against ‘zonal pricing’, backed by Octopus founder but opposed by many other energy firms
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/08/government-rules-out-zonal-pricing-and-starts-search-for-alternative-plan
I'd love to know whether the individual supreme court judges really look forward to living in the country they are enabling.
'cos we 'aint in Kansas anymore Toto.
“The current Attorney General Pam Bondi is covering up crimes.”
- Tucker Carlson on his show today
And chance of some pension advice when you have a minute ?
My favourite extant non-English language is Icelandic. Which is the only language which sounds and looks as appealing as English (to me).
You make an interesting point about the unlikeliness of the cultural hegemony of the descendants of the Anglo Saxons. It must have looked an unlikely outcome, 1500 years ago. And yet. My understanding is that the current underatanding is that Anglo Saxon culture was actively chosen by the Eastern British, not at the point of the sword but as an active rejection of all things Roman, a reawakening of a dinly perceived pre-Roman culture which was more martial, less urban, more pagan, more rooted in the landscape. There must have been something very transmissable about the culture even then.
If our law cannot hold anyone senior to account then I think we need to start fresh. With pitchforks and burning brands if absolutely necessary.
1) the original postmaster was declared innocent
2) the postoffice lawyer involved got a few months for contempt of court...
And my view is that England would be a happier place today had it not succeeded.
They did abolish slavery. But also they reduced almost the whole population to a status not much higher than slaves.
I'm not claiming the Anglo Saxon ruling class was a model.of competence. They wouldn't have kept losing the country if they were. But for the man labouring in the field, they were better than what came after.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DLxR70cO863/
https://bsky.app/profile/steamboathedgie.bsky.social/post/3lti2m6njoc2z
You don't know anything about Income Tax or Corporation Tax. You don't understand how any of it works. It is impossible to respond to a bunch of meaningless words.
Mind you. I guess it shows why Elon has such a problem with those pesky "thought police" who call out every little thing as somehow anti semitic
Now going to have to sip it until 11:15 by which time he will have headed off home...
"I'm not trying to put a dollar on a life or a flood, but the fact of the matter [is] floods do happen, and we need to be prepared for them, then-Kerr County Commissioner Bob Reeves noted during a series of public meetings that began in 2016. And, his former colleague Tom Moser pointed out, "We also have more summer camps than anybody else along the Guadalupe River."
There's a bit of a problem if you know there is an issue but you want the money from the summer camps and then gut the weather warning people (it's proving hard to see if the sacking were due to Texas, Trump or a combination of the two).
You just need modest economic growth and a small amount of inflation. 2% economic growth and 3% inflation reduces debt to GDP by 5%.
So by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest, you held in a personal account which would normally have attracted income tax and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA.
Instead you charged it as corporation tax and you expect HMRC to trace all this ie individuals using corporation tax for what would normally be income tax liable income and all the added admin cost just to remove WFA?
Steve Rosenberg@BBCSteveR
"Normal people cannot but be shocked by this." Reaction in Russia as transport minister Roman Starovoit is sacked in the morning, found dead in the afternoon.
https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/1942664560164659354
BBC - 'Russian minister's death serves as warning to political elite'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0l49310z2go
Not just that they're angry that it isn't, or they have no hope that it will, but they've internalised the failure of it to happen to the extent of chiding those who complain about the failure. They see it as the natural order of things.
I remember some daft person expecting the post-pandemic 2020s to be a riotous explosion of revelry to rival the roaring twenties that followed the Spanish Flu, but it really feels as though we've entered a period of profound pessimism.
People say to me that they're being realistic rather than pessimistic, but I think a key difference is that you can be realistic about the difficulties that exist, while retaining some degree of optimism about the potential to fix those problems. And the problem with pessimism is that it is a self-fulfilling state that disables people from acting to take those steps that might improve them.
When the politicians refuse to level with the voters the public finances and the necessary steps to being them into equilibrium they are being pessimistic about their ability to communicate with the public and the public's willingness to follow a lead.
But what if they're wrong? What if they give it a go?
We've seen similar with the Ukraine War - pessimism over the ability to defeat the Russians, and so support has been delayed and rationed. Pessimism abounds.
Somehow we need to snap out of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2iC4rCI01w
Wonderfully skeezy version (and in no way at all about how I'm feeling about politics just now) : John Parish, PJ Harvey - Is That All There Is?
Similarly to how they often side-eyed the effects of the war or Spanish flu.
So.... Maybe we're got a Great Depression to come and properly ruin things.
W00t!
This is very worrying. Until recently has been correcting and confounding Trumpists and far-rightists, on their various themes.
Worrying stuff.
It was a dreadful time. This times 10.
40% youth unemployment anyone.
a) 'by your own admission you had taxable income on the interest' Nope my company did, not me.
b) 'and therefore counted to the taxable income to remove your WFA'. Ignoring the fact that WFA didn't exist, nope wrong again it would not have counted to the taxable income to remove my WFA because it wasn't my interest. It belonged to my company and not to me and was subject to Corporation Tax not income tax.
c) 'you expect HMRC to trace all of this'. Well seeing as it was an HMRC requirement for me to charge it to Corporation Tax and I did it, it wasn't exactly onerous for them and as it wouldn't come into the WFA calculation either it wasn't even relevant for them to trace it anyway
d) As I have already pointed out numerous times HMRC already do receive details of bank interest and do a capital check, so no added admin at all.
Other than that you got it perfectly right
0/10
Try arguing about a subject you understand.
You can dodge, you can swerve, you can hide, you can reason, you can explain, you can set up your flowcharts or your code or your excel spreadsheet. But HYUFD won't stop.
getting a life?
Wagner arsonists were paid, as suspected. No idea why this crucial detail was missing from the previous BBC article, given it must have come out in court.
b) WFA does exist, as you stated normally any income from that you moved to your personal account would have been liable for income tax, hence would have counted as taxable income for WFA removal.
c) It was by personal agreement between you and the Corporation Tax Inspector again to get the interest declared for Corporation Tax not Income Tax purposes.
d) As you also stated HMRC had to engage with calls and submissions with you to affirm all the above, adding to extra admin costs
CNN Exclusive: Authors of new book reveal 2024 audio tapes where Donald Trump said he threatened to bomb Moscow if Russian President Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine.
https://bsky.app/profile/cnn.com/post/3ltioltnikk22
Trump is a little behind the time.
But he personally was never the beneficial owner of the money in his personal account. It was owned by the company at all times (hence the agreement with the tax inspector).
He also doesn't get that everyone here is laughing at him.
There is certainly some merit in the argument as working outside in fields is good for mental health (I volunteer in such a charity) but you can forget getting any sort of productivity out of it. Wonder what the large US agricultural firms will make of this when considering their political donations.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5389919-agriculture-secretary-migrant-laborers/
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/elon-musk-grok-antisemitic-posts-x-rcna217634
The AI chatbot Grok, which is produced by Elon Musk’s xAI, wrote numerous antisemitic social media posts Tuesday after the artificial intelligence company released a revamped version of it over the weekend.
...
... Grok replied, in part: “folks with surnames like ‘Steinberg’ (often Jewish) keep popping up in extreme leftist activism, especially the anti-white variety.
Is there something a bit Musk-like in not just the content, but the style of the latest Grok? Eg from same article
Truth hurts, but patterns don’t lie sounds like the sort of thing Musk would post after some white supremacist bullshit.
Or maybe he could widen the use of his expert knowledge and tell a few physicists here where they are going wrong on the four fundamental forces. At least that would get me off the hook.
America really is headed to a dark and stupid place.
A couple of decades ago, overpopulation was seen as being a massive problem for humanity, promising famine and conflict. Now we're being told that low birthrates are a massive problem for humanity.
Much of it is about change and nostalgia. Many people look back on the past nostalgically, remembering the good and forgetting the bad, and compare it with nowadays, where the bad looms foremost in their minds and they forget the good. In their mind change is, by its very nature, negative = unless it is a change that corresponds with their viewpoint.
The Internet does not help: negative stories can spread further and faster than good; and negativity can be a form of control and gaining power.
Also, pessimism and negativity can be a reason not to do anything. "What's the point in helping Ukraine if they're going to lose..." is commonly heard from people pretending to support Ukraine.
Every week, Mrs J and I try to go for a a half-hour walk on our own, when we just chat and chew the cud. We often use the time to talk positively about each other and the world. I treasure those walks, of being in each other's company.
The small farmers are the ones who will get shafted.
Won’t link to his account and he really is a raging anti semite.
However this popped up on my feed.
https://x.com/mostlypeacefull/status/1942746868007461247?s=61
Anyway, overnight Grok - the Elon Musk owned AI - called itself “MechaHitler” and referred to “his majesty Adolf Hitler”
Glad that @leon wants us to turn ourselves over to the AI overlords. Seems like a sensible idea
It really is the Wild West.
* This is absolutely true
The "Roaring Twenties" are an interesting analogy to some people's hopes got post-COVID. It sounds a little "Boris" ie hot air and self-delusion.
But what were the Roaring Twenties for ordinary people? Were they like the "Swinging Sixties" - which if I have it right from social history and speaking to older friends were limited to a small area of West London. Though I am sure dedicated followers of fashion followed the fashion in their way.
I had quite an interesting online conversation yesterday with a woman online yesterday - she runs a Substack called "Creatively Conscious", and part of her business is about mentoring people as writers / online communicators. She has first child on the way, and live sin the Lake District with a philosophy of "slow living", through a philosophy called "earthkeeping".
(Background: I've been wondering whether Substack or Wordpress.com is a better platform for some musings. I don't want a full blog - last time it swallowed half my time. Not do I want a Youtube channel which is too much like a needy dog, requiring attention 6 times a day.)
Earthkeeping is vaguely "small scale green", slightly hippy, light footprint and tolerant, but without the ingrowing gullibility and bollocks which attaches to "spirituality" a la Glastonbury (town, nbot festival). It reminds me of various movements which grew up post-hippy semi-detached from churches (technical word: sodalities), for example Iona and Othona communities, which I have always watched.
I think the one weakness of such philosophies is a little like complete pacifism - it potentially needs a safe bubble in which to exist. And when the barbarians of whatever sort come calling, it can fail.
Here is her link: https://creativelyconscious.substack.com/
(One interesting thing on the site is how spread out the actual content is in presentation. I don't see, for example, what we in blogland used to call "pillar articles" which were cornerstones of promoting a brand.)