Member Since: 21st Nov 2001
Tax Consultant Raven Taxation Ltd
4th Aug 2020
How about 'CJRS, SEISS are all tax led services cannot see how you had less work.' and 'So you didn't do much tax work through lock down?, surely the returns will still need to be done.' and 'I cannot see how you could not provide tax advisory services through lockdown'. These all say pretty clearly that you didn’t believe I was telling the truth and, not surprisingly, I was rather irritated by the suggestion that what I was saying couldn’t possibly be true because it wasn’t your personal experience. However, I am prepared to accept that you made your mistaken comments because you made an incorrect assumption as Rammstein1 says and not because you genuinely didn’t believe me. Though, to be honest, I’m not sure what you have found aggressive about my response – I think that may be more in your reading than in my writing. Actually, I thought I was rather restrained!
Indeed, you will be pleased to hear that I didn’t sit back and complain about what others were getting – though I have commented on the disparity in appropriate discussions on AWeb (as, indeed, you have). In fact, I have been saying to concerned friends, relatives and clients how glad I am that I have some money in the bank that I have saved very sensibly over the years, how lucky I am that I already work from home and how so many people are worse off than I am so I consider myself fortunate. I quite enjoyed lockdown when I didn’t have much work and would happily not be given any money under the government schemes if what I didn’t get went to those that actually needed it. But as you don’t know me, you wouldn’t know that and seem to have made assumptions based on me making a comment here on an article specifically about the people who, like me, haven’t had help from the government schemes (btw I referred to ‘government hand out’ schemes because that’s how you referred to them!). I do find your latest response rather strange as you have no idea what sort of person I am but I guess maybe you were a bit embarrassed about how wrong your original comments were so resorted to a bit of bluster.
The point I was trying (and clearly failing!) to make was that there are many who have missed out while others got money they didn’t need and that for one-man band directors like me, furloughing myself wasn’t an option as it was important to me to be available to my clients. I didn’t try to market more services to them because they were drowning in (mainly unpaid) work so that would not have been appropriate. I’m not one to try to make money out of people’s difficulties - I just made sure I was here whenever they needed me.
I hope that you are now able to understand how inappropriate and incorrect your comments were.
I’ve never been on the receiving end of the nasty remarks I often see on AWeb – it’s a novel experience!
4th Aug 2020
You appear to be accusing me of lying despite having no knowledge of me and my business which, to be honest, I find a bit offensive. I shouldn’t need to explain myself as you have no good reason to doubt my veracity but, as you clearly do doubt it, I will explain what you are unable to comprehend. I provide specialist tax advisory services to accountants and other professionals (IFAs and solicitors). I don’t do any tax returns or PAYE. My accountant clients were, indeed, very busy during lockdown – dealing with the government handout schemes mainly. My work dropped off a cliff at the beginning of lockdown while many of them were working out how to move everything so they and their staff could work from home (and their clients were getting to grips with more important things than tax). Then, apart from the odd question about whether a grant was taxable, stuff about the new CGT reporting requirement and a few minor ongoing issues, they weren’t doing anything that they needed my help with. My income plummeted but I couldn’t furlough myself as I needed to be available if my clients needed me. Work has now picked up and is probably near normal for this time of year. Who knows, maybe some of the work I would have done will still need to be done but later in the year and I will lose less money that currently appears to be the case. But then I would have happily refunded any payment that it transpired I didn’t need.
I am not upset that my neighbour got support – but I take issue with a scheme which resulted in her being better off when many who needed it got no support. I have a friend with a long-established dance/yoga class self-employment who took her pension early to fund a house move on divorce in 2018/19. It meant she had a few pounds more non self-employed income than self-employed income and she got nothing despite being able to earn not a single penny during lockdown. Frankly it’s a rubbish scheme if it takes no account of the actual loss of income and makes payments to people who haven’t lost any money while refusing to compensate someone who can’t work because of the government’s imposed restrictions. That is, indeed, a government failing.
An apology for suggesting that I am lying wouldn’t go amiss.
4th Aug 2020
There's a lot of us! It was overly generous to some and completely excluded others.
4th Aug 2020
Furlough wasn't an option for many of us who have incorporated businesses. If I had furloughed myself, I wouldn't have been able to work for any of my clients. I had very little work for almost 3 months but I needed to be available to do the bit of work that did come in or my clients would have found someone else to provide tax advisory services. If I had not been incorporated (mainly for limited liability purposes), I could have claimed the payment and worked. Contrast that with a neighbour who has a very small business, got the rates grant (despite her premises being too small to pay rates) and the self-employed payment and is quids in. I've spent lockdown watching all the deliveries and workmen coming to her house while she spends her windfall! The complete failure to tie in the grant/self-employed payment to any actual loss was, in my opinion, a big mistake. The self-employed who got the payment will be filling in tax returns, the payment could easily have been refundable to the extent that there was no loss compared to the previous year/an average of 2 years etc. The government have no issues clawing back benefits for people whose income has increased and this would be no different.
6th Dec 2019
It isn't that simple. My understanding is that the growth in income only offsets the fall in tax revenue if you are cutting from high rates - around 70%/75% has been suggested as the apex of the Laffer Curve if I recall correctly. Not that income growth for the Treasury necessarily helps those who need help anyway.
6th Dec 2019
As a small business similar to those in this article, I would not be happy to have to pay more tax if it isn't going to change anything for the poor, the elderly, the homeless, the physically or mentally ill or the environment and it just going to be used to keep tax rates for high earners low, reduce IHT for the wealthy and make the rich richer. But I'd happily pay more tax if it is going to be spent on improving the situation of the poor, elderly and unwell and counteracting climate change. Not everyone is only interested in how much money they can get. It's a shame to focus only on that aspect in this article rather than the bigger picture.
3rd May 2019
Sorry, Glenn, but I don't understand the relevance of conscription or men fighting to this particular discussion. I suspect we are all agreed that conscription wasn't fair - i.e. not gender equality - but then it was imposed by men on men in respect of wars declared by men. Maybe women in charge would have made a different decision but as they weren't permitted to be in positions of power, we shall never know. I think perhaps you have got confused about what topic is under discussion here.
I don't know enough about Accountex to comment on its diversity specifically but I'd hazard a guess that, if there was any bias towards middle-aged white men, it is because, like the armed forces, accountancy was a johnny-come-lately to the arena of gender and race equality and, hopefully, the passage of time will see more female and minority representation as both rise through the ranks. I've been in the tax business for nearly 40 years so I am speaking from experience.
3rd May 2019
Clearly it wasn't fair and equal - but I think you will find that it wasn't women who made the decision that only men could fight. Indeed, women in the armed forces have battled to get the right to fight. Had the armed forces become an equal opportunities employer rather earlier than 2016, the male/female make up of fighters if war happened tomorrow might have been rather different! I'm not saying you don't have some good arguments to support your stance but I'm afraid this isn't one of them.
5th Jan 2018
Me too! But I find the first two weeks of February are usually really busy as my clients pick up the non-tax return work that they haven't had time to do because they've been concentrating on tax returns and which have now sat around so long they've become urgent. I'm guessing it's the same for you.
6th May 2016
So - I'm a Luddite now because I tend to read AccountingWeb from my desk while sitting in front of my PC working rather than on my iPhone or iPad. Hmmm.