I think it is just a bother that you get politicians like Boris Johnson who use their once powerful position to bleat on and give the unaware members of the public the noise that they want to hear, and disrupt the very difficult job of negotiating a deal.
The way in which MTD is being brought about in the UK stinks of corporate profit which does nothing to help the small businesses.
If we are meant to be able to better advise clients, then having to provide them no choice but to be forced to buy software that we are not even sure works yet is absolutely baffling.
I think that the lack of confidence in HMRC has absolute merit. If they are unable to deal with annual submissions, what hope do they have with quartlerly submissions?
Isn't there also a point about working "smarter" instead of "harder".
For example, allowing the simpler work to be reviewed by a senior instead of a manager, thus putting less time on the clock and better profitability on the client.
It also opens up the prospect of managers being able to seek out more work for us accountants to take on. A win-win all round really.
Is there perhaps a reason why the new recruits are not up to scratch these days? Is the training for them up to scratch? If they're new and willing to learn, but perhaps just aren't fast learners, could that be addressed, instead of saying "Oh it's been your probation, good-bye?"
No, having 2 female Prime Ministers out of 75 isn't anything like equality.
There is still a massive gender pay gap, and women are still not being paid the same as men for work of equal value. Women are under-represented in senior roles across all industries.
Women are discriminated against when it comes to their career paths and access to jobs. Men are discriminated against their private lives and put under huge pressure to focus on their career and making money. It's harder for a man to be accepted as a nursery school teacher than a woman to be accepted as an engineer.
Aren't we basically trying to say though that there are issues on both sides?
At the moment, we're focussing on the huge obstacles that women have to face to be represented and heard in the workplace and in general life. These obstacles should never need to exist for them and I can never understand why they are there in the first place.
The issues men face are valid, but is not the point of this article.
You seem to forget, this is our second woman PM. In this country we promote on merit and we treat our women with respect. Unfortunately the occasional blips get blown up out of all proportion.
I do not believe I mentioned PM's or politics in my response?
I agree that more needs to be done, but it's interesting how it seems to bring out the worst in some people.
I think the most important thing is that we can reach a point where it does not matter if you are male or female, you have the equal chances to work, family and the life of your dreams.
It's something in my upbringing that I thought was a given, so it is astounding when I learnt that it is not the case.
I hope we can all come together and support women everywhere beyond just international women's day.
With respect, please don't pervert my genuine and sincere commentary.
I believe that I went to some trouble to provide balance within my narration and, if some of the content troubles you, its regretful although, fortunately, not that important.
Your commentary has not been perverted in anyway and I think you need to re-read what you wrote and what has been written by the responder carefully.
You mentioned in your post that it is more importantly, a woman that has been brought to the IR35 case.
Why was that needed to be a point? This was to do with a person working with the BBC who fell under the IR35 rules. It's that simple.
Your reply would have been altered significantly if it was a "Mr J Smith" who got reprimanded for this sort of thing, simply due to the fact they are male.
What I'm trying to say is that the fact the BBC presenter is female is wholly irrelevant to the fact that she fell under IR35 regulations, that the BBC should've picked that up and HMRC have made a correct finding against her.
I'm sure other people, of both genders, will now be brought up against this too.
My issue with this is that they have the financial means to be able to pocket all of this money, using legal loopholes, whilst others that are struggling to make ends meet will see no benefit of this at all, other than wealthy people getting richer and those on the lower end in more and more debt, probably to said wealthy.
The sensible thing to make MTD work would've been to keep the annual filing, however have the automatic feeds from banks, employment and so on.
Then be able to use cloud accounting or even be able to have specifically formatted spreadsheets to easily fill in information such as private self-employed income and expenses.
The idea is to make things simpler, the current regimes are out there to make matters more complicated for clients and agents, I believe for provoking more fines because people will struggle to get their heads around quarterly reporting!
I appreciate I am avoiding the VAT Issues, but that is because I'm quite new to this and have had little/no exposure to VAT.
My answers
I think it is just a bother that you get politicians like Boris Johnson who use their once powerful position to bleat on and give the unaware members of the public the noise that they want to hear, and disrupt the very difficult job of negotiating a deal.
This is what bothers me more than anything else.
It's just disappointing that we have pension black holes and this does not exactly make it look all great and well now, does it?
The way in which MTD is being brought about in the UK stinks of corporate profit which does nothing to help the small businesses.
If we are meant to be able to better advise clients, then having to provide them no choice but to be forced to buy software that we are not even sure works yet is absolutely baffling.
I think that the lack of confidence in HMRC has absolute merit. If they are unable to deal with annual submissions, what hope do they have with quartlerly submissions?
Isn't there also a point about working "smarter" instead of "harder".
For example, allowing the simpler work to be reviewed by a senior instead of a manager, thus putting less time on the clock and better profitability on the client.
It also opens up the prospect of managers being able to seek out more work for us accountants to take on. A win-win all round really.
Is there perhaps a reason why the new recruits are not up to scratch these days? Is the training for them up to scratch? If they're new and willing to learn, but perhaps just aren't fast learners, could that be addressed, instead of saying "Oh it's been your probation, good-bye?"
Sometimes more more more is less less less.
And I agree with you.
Aren't we basically trying to say though that there are issues on both sides?
At the moment, we're focussing on the huge obstacles that women have to face to be represented and heard in the workplace and in general life. These obstacles should never need to exist for them and I can never understand why they are there in the first place.
The issues men face are valid, but is not the point of this article.
I do not believe I mentioned PM's or politics in my response?
I agree that more needs to be done, but it's interesting how it seems to bring out the worst in some people.
I think the most important thing is that we can reach a point where it does not matter if you are male or female, you have the equal chances to work, family and the life of your dreams.
It's something in my upbringing that I thought was a given, so it is astounding when I learnt that it is not the case.
I hope we can all come together and support women everywhere beyond just international women's day.
Your commentary has not been perverted in anyway and I think you need to re-read what you wrote and what has been written by the responder carefully.
You mentioned in your post that it is more importantly, a woman that has been brought to the IR35 case.
Why was that needed to be a point? This was to do with a person working with the BBC who fell under the IR35 rules. It's that simple.
Your reply would have been altered significantly if it was a "Mr J Smith" who got reprimanded for this sort of thing, simply due to the fact they are male.
What I'm trying to say is that the fact the BBC presenter is female is wholly irrelevant to the fact that she fell under IR35 regulations, that the BBC should've picked that up and HMRC have made a correct finding against her.
I'm sure other people, of both genders, will now be brought up against this too.
I agree.
My issue with this is that they have the financial means to be able to pocket all of this money, using legal loopholes, whilst others that are struggling to make ends meet will see no benefit of this at all, other than wealthy people getting richer and those on the lower end in more and more debt, probably to said wealthy.
Legal? Of course.
Moral? Very questionable.
The sensible thing to make MTD work would've been to keep the annual filing, however have the automatic feeds from banks, employment and so on.
Then be able to use cloud accounting or even be able to have specifically formatted spreadsheets to easily fill in information such as private self-employed income and expenses.
The idea is to make things simpler, the current regimes are out there to make matters more complicated for clients and agents, I believe for provoking more fines because people will struggle to get their heads around quarterly reporting!
I appreciate I am avoiding the VAT Issues, but that is because I'm quite new to this and have had little/no exposure to VAT.