I do wonder what the different level of dress are.
Did he have like a flow chart or a pyramid to show what should be worn for different clients?
Thanks Philip! I took your advice about appearing intimidating and dressed as Michael Myers for a meeting with one of my elderly clients and it's gone horribly wrong...
It astounds me that God lets his followers suffer in such a way. Surely as He is all knowing and all powerful, He could put some of that power towards stopping these scam emails targeting his faithful followers. Almost defies belief.
Surely the more outrageous aspect of this is that Heather Townsend has assumed the gender and race of the panelists based on appearance.
Guilford Accounting wrote:
Don't blame others for how you decide to feel.
Why? Didn't you know that everything is someone else's fault these days? Usually they horrible white males. We'd be better off without them in all honesty.
All you need now is a significant amount of people to agree that those are enough to make you God and hey presto - you've got a new job.
Not at all. I have absolutely no qualms with the use of limited company's. Similarly I have no qualms with the use of loans. I'm probably the exact opposite in fact and would use these imagined concepts against HMRC wherever possible.
The point I'm making is that the concept of a loan, and a limited company, are things our society have imagined to make the process of doing business simpler. Neither exists if we didn't come up with their concept. I therefore believe that if either is "created" in the way we have imagined them, then that should be that.
If a limited company is properly formed and engages to do work, then that should be how it is taxed. HMRC shouldn't be able to come in and decide that because they are getting less tax than they'd like to change that arrangement. To unimagine the imagined company if you will - which is essentially what IR35 does. That's not fair.
For society to work we all have to buy into the same concepts, and HMRC trying to change the agreed upon rules to suit themselves is not on.
Similarly for loans. If EBTs and the likes have been documented as loans, then HMRC shouldn't be able to come in and decide they're income instead just because they don't like them (before the 2010 rule change at least). Up until this point there was an agreed concept for a loan and it was agreed that a loan wasn't taxable income. Any loans made until this point should therefore be left as such. Deciding to change this agreed concept and impose tax charges on loans created before this date is unjust in my view.
Yes - the concept of family, school or a pop group are all imagined entities. You can point at a group of people that you believe meets the requirements of the concept - but it doesn't take away from the fact that they are imagined concepts. (Family may be more tangible granted given that there are physical biological connections).
The fact you mention that parts of a company are intangible sort of backs up my idea that they are imagined. Something tangible, has a physical presence. Something intangible does not. It exists only because we believe it exists.
All the items you list - annual accounts, list of shareholders, registration number - don't make a company any more real.
We could do the same with any imagined concept. God! Possibly the most decisive imagined concept going.
If we all agreed that for God to exist, he would need a certificate with his name and registered number, he'd have to prepare annual accounts and provide a list of directors/angels. If we create the necessary paperwork, then we can all imagine that God exists. Doesn't change the fact that it's still an imagined concept.
Only because we all choose to believe in its existence - it is an imagined entity. A company isn't a tangible thing.
You might show me a piece of paper with the company name on it, the buildings it owns and those who work for it, but you're not actually showing me the company. A company is something we've all agreed to imagine together. We're all playing make believe.
Personally, I don't see much different in pretending a company exists to get a lower tax rate, to pretending a loan exists to achieve the same outcome. Both the company and the loan are imagined concepts, existing only in our minds and evidenced by some scribbles on paper.
If a piece of paper in place to say a company exists is enough to lower ones tax rate, then a piece of paper to say a loan exists should also be enough to do likewise.
Not massively different though.
In one case, we're pretending that the persons income is a loan, whereas in the other we are pretending that their income is actually the income of a make believe entity.
Not too dissimilar in my view.