Oh, well, that's all right then.
Businesses are being asked to do something they don't currently do but it won't create any extra work or cost. Why? 'Cause Jim has said so.
I don't know why they bother with consultation periods.
"Uber employment law verdict hailed by drivers"
Which ones? the 19 who brought the case or the tens of thousands who were presumably happy with the arrangements?
"It's the law"
Anyone notice that when "the law" results in more tax being due it's the word of law that is paramount but that if the law results in less tax being due then 'morality' and 'fairness' and 'paying your share' is suddenly brought into the argument?
PwC whistle blowers.
Apparently the defence is that they were helping expose 'unfair tax practices'. Not illegal. 'Unfair'. In his opinion.
Why can't we all just get along?
We have park run in our estate,
The run monopolises all the paths in the park and then continues into our estate, monopolising the only green space in the estate.
Its only for an hour, but other users cannot really use the space when they are there.
We have 200 runners coming yards away from our dining room window while we are having breakfast.
The impression park run likes to give is that it is for people who wouldn't be exercising if it wasn't for them. That may be true of a minority, but many would anyway. And some at are local run are members of running clubs who use the park run as training.
Personally I say charge them; resources are valuable and if you want to monopolise them you need to pay. No matter what the supposed rules and guidelines say, when you have 200 runners you are monopolising the space. If you are not happy to pay then just go run in a smaller group when you are not monopolising the area.
We have a proper running track in our town, not used much....
So for one hour or so a week they 'monopolise' the space? Leaving you only 167 hours in the week to use it yourself? What exactly do you need to do in that one hour that you can only do at that time that this monopoly deprives you of?
And if these runners would be running anyway would you rather they spread out a bit so on a Saturday you got 30 an hour for 7 hours? Interrupting breakfast lunch and dinner?
You could always try having breakfast earlier. Or later. Or in another room. Or in the garden. Or maybe go to the running track and have it there?
If everyone paid the tax that was legally due we could ALL pay less tax, instead of the elite few who can afford Panamanian lawyers
I doubt it.
First I doubt that as a % the amount of tax evaded is significant compared to the amount collected.
Second it's a naïve fantasy to think that if only a few laws were changed the billions more tax would roll in. Say we did 'invade' Jersey as some idiots are suggesting. Do we think MNCs and Trusts would stay there and pay more tax or would they simply move elsewhere? Then what? Invade Panama? Invade Estonia? Why should anyone look to locate in a country that charges high taxes? Why not find a country that seems to do OK without taxing the bejeezus out of its residents? If Jersey is terrible because it has lower taxes than the UK, is the UK terrible because it has lower taxes than the USA? What's the 'moral' right level of taxation?
Thirdly, governments seem content to spend and spend everything they collect and then some more. If they had more tax they wouldn't cut tax rates, they would just find another pet project to spend the extra money on.
Genuine loans that are being (or have been) repaid won't be affected.
Somewhat harsh on Uber drivers.
Besides, I wouldn't want a convicted fraudster to be my cab driver.
"Here we are mate"
"OK, how much is the fare?"
"That'll be £3,295"
Justin Bryant wrote:
The spoof website in the link below no longer gets updated.
I think that was because it became impossible to parody Murphy, he 'murphed' into a parody of himself.
I'm a Professor and so is my dog
chatman wrote:AndyC555 wrote:was gifted the tile of 'Professor'. Most would be too embarrassed to use the title but he now signs himself "Professor Murphy" and when challenged on his blog on his economic qualifications replied "I am a Professor"
A few years ago, members of the non-chartered accountancy bodies were given the right to describe themselves as chartered. If you asked them why they refer to themselves as chartered instead of, for example, certified, wouldn't you expect them to respond in the same way? Do you think that is unreasonable?
And what about teachers at US universities? They all call themselves professor.
Professor is an honorary title. You pass no exams, you have no thesis judged by peers. It used to be handed out only to a few and was meant to recognise exceptional achievement and expertise.
Fine using the title but when asked about QUALIFICATIONS it is the act of someone rather pompous to claim an honorary title as a qualification. Especially one which still here in the UK has yet to loose its gravitas. As I say, there was a time when the title was rare. If the want it give it out to anyone who works in a school, right down to the cooks and the cleaners, fine, but it devalues those who went before and becomes meaningless.