louisiana

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The question is in this Internet age is whether > tell all is somehow empowering, liberating or > downright stupidity. There are reasons why some > things should be kept secret. > I don't think this material had a 'secret' classification (?) And it was available to some 3 million people worldwide long before Wikileaks got its hands on it. Is that they way you treat information you don't want people to know? If so, a bit dumb.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The latest in American government stupidness: The > White House has told federal employees and > contractors that they're not allowed to read > classified federal documents posted to WikiLeaks > unless they have the proper security clearance. > > Quick! Shut the stable door...! Some US universities have also been notified that students must not look at or talk about the material online, or they won't get government jobs when they graduate.

tog_in_sox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well said Reggie. Finally had to pipe up. > > Arcadia paid ?200-300m in tax last year > Somewhere between 28000 and 45000 employees (don't > know how many FTEs but suspect no more than half) > - paid a total of ?500m plus company benefits > No figures for sales staff but junior HQ buying > and merchandising staff start on ?18.5k. > Management in store and HQ on more. > > Some of these companies would not be here today if > not for PG (or another canny entrepreneur's) > involvement. > > Can anyone definitively state how much personal > tax he paid? I'd love to know this. This is the question. And does he also claim VAT back on his personal UK spending, owing to his wife's Monaco residence? (i.e. does he make all purchases in his wife's name? I wouldn't be surprised.) > > The hypocrisy here is that ask any of those > protesters if they were in his shoes how much tax > would they pay and a minority would truthfully pay > the full due. This is about people not of > fortunate circumstance (predominantly employed by > the state) bitching about their lot at the expense > of the privacy of an individual. PG is prime > target because he's the one tasked with shining a > light on Public sector excess. I run my own business, and have done for more than twenty years, and was only employed by the state (NHS) for a couple of years, in the early 80s. I hold no torch for the public sector, whatsoever (the opposite). And I consider myself very fortunate, and am in no way bitching about my lot. If you're worried about privacy, take a look at several Scandinavian countries, where incomes and tax paid by all citizens is online and public, on the interweb. I could pay less tax than I do if I wanted. It would entail me reducing my salary (and hence PAYE bills) vs dividends, adding more expenses as business expenses, making a close relative who resides in another place a main shareholder (a la P Green) etc. etc. Me, I wouldn't do it. I just think - example that is very personally known to me - it's bizarre that a worldwide top 50 billionaire should consider the expenses of a marriage a deductible UK business expense. How different is this from the Leona Helmsley trick of billing 8m USD of works to her home to be a business expense? (for which she was - briefly - jailed). I'm sure he's not alone, but this is just one example I am personally aware of. Reggie: many people set up companies because that's the only way their clients will trade with them, for legal reasons. While their legal reasons are I think highly questionable, without the benefit of a QC's opinion, and in need of work, the self-employed person sets up a company in order to be able to bill the big guys and have some work. It's hard enough to deal with the corporate legal/contract/billing thing in any case, without having to try fighting that particular battle with each and every potential client.

I loved it. You can't beat a good old Freudian slip. >:D<

And some people think we are not going back to the Middle Ages... :-S Ask him what he thinks the cost difference will be publishing on the interweb.

felt-tip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so is a working class snob worse than a middle > class snob? Shouldn't be. There are other kinds of snob too. Intellectual snobs, for example, who regard anyone less intellectually endowed as a fool and idiot undeserving of human communication. Or infamy snobs, who once they achieve fame/infamy, will only converse with those benefiting(?) from a similar rating in the fame/infamy stakes. The ones who won't interact with [Lix Hurley's term] 'civilians' (even when it is in their interests to do so).

peterstorm, I'm sure that essential and/or urgent works have to be carried out at all times of year. We've had water spewing for days and weeks on end at various spots in this neck of the woods, repeatedly, every winter, week in week out, month in month out. Every winter except this one. Indeed, the lack of water spewing out this winter has been so remarkable that it has been the subject of local dinner party conversation over the last couple of weeks. This seems to be more 'planned works' than the other kind (they gave a lot of notice AND there is for a change no water streaming down the various local roads to seemingly precipitate the action). And given that the consequence of TW digging up the road here often seems to be that fresh streams of leaks are created, I await the upcoming works with interest.

reggie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its easier to complain about other people's > failings than to confront one's own. However I do > agree that it's bloody annoying that these big > tycoons and businesses find ways to shaft the > system. > But most people legally or illegally shaft the > system to a greater or lesser extent. I have a > limited company which was set up in order to pay > less tax. And most self employed people, I > guess,file expenses that stretch the truth. > Somewhere in the middle of Toby Young and Billy > Bragg Dear Reggie, Would you please provide a defence of why a worldwide top 50 billionaire according to Forbes (I'm talking top 50, name recognition for you-all) should have the expenses of his marriage in some third world country written off as a business expense via some UK company? In what way would a third world country marriage certificate (translation thereof) be a business expense? PS I provide 10p receipts for my stamps and photocopies. And provide name and address and date and time and meeting topic for every meeting that I charge ?1.20 or ?1.30 - by bus - to attend.

womanofdulwich Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd rather work for Philip Green at just above min > wage than not work. In fact I would rather anyone > worked for him at this rate than claimed benefits, > all sourced from taxes we pay on our earnings ( I > think I may be a squeezed middle). That is not the issue. The issue is whether *PG should pay tax*. I don't care if he's offering minimum wage rubbish jobs. He does, and so do many thousands of others. The question is whether his *business* should pay tax, rather than avoiding tax through his wife's Monaco residence. I think his business should pay tax here. And I think if he does not want to pay tax here, fine and dandy, he can piss off somewhere else, as there really are plenty of others offering rubbish minimum wage jobs, thank you.

Administrator Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi > > I believe it was because it was too similar to the > "offering to do shopping trips for elderly/people > unable to go" thread. The thread (my thread) was actually started several days before the thread you are referring to. Also it was not East Dulwich > specific, we do get a few other generic public > service announcements e.g. Save energy, help the > homeless etc and they are in the Lounge. It is a > grey area sometimes and apologies if you feel it > was an incorrect decision but as I say there was > already a thread discussing helping the elderly in > East Dulwich in the ED Issues section it was moved > to the Lounge. As I said, that thread came along several days later. Having checked facts: my post was morning of 30 Nov, the above thread you mention was first posted late afternoon of 2 Dec, so approx 2.5 days (3 working days) later. How can Lounging my thread on 30 Nov be based on existence of thread that didn't happen until 3 days later? Do I really post 'help the homeless threads' every other day?

zeban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Er there's making money as any business needs to, > and there's greed and profiteering at any cost. I > would suggest Philip Green is in the latter > category given that he's happy to avoid paying the > amount of taxes he should be. This is the whole > point of this argument and why the protesters are > choosing companies and individuals such as this. > It isn't a protest against businesses in general > or the minimum wage so please don't shout at me > and read the thread properly. I agree as far as PG is concerned. Anyone who has to use his wife's residence in Monaco as a massive tax dodge is a guy without balls in any case. B)

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But if you are a freelance worker....whose work is > contract based you CAN claim benefits between > contracts (providing any savings you have are not > above the allowed threshold). But if your contracts do not individually entitle to you any work at all (I've had 5-year+ contracts of that kind; you need 10 of that kind to keep you going) you cannot. The contract has no end date. But it's not giving you any money, maybe for months on end. You are thinking of people who do umbrella-type contracts into firms for particular periods, where you work on the premises etc etc. That it only a very particular kind of contract. Other contracts are just agreements in principle (for the lawyers, regarding IP and such) that are apart from any actual work that is offered.

indiepanda Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > louisiana Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The only way around this is to take out very > > expensive private insurance for income > protection > > against sickness etc., on top of equally > expensive > > insurance against professional negligence, > > insurance of business assets etc. Each of these > > come to several thousand pounds a year, even if > > you can get them (most insurance companies > won't > > sell income protection to the self employed; > and > > the cases where they actually pay out on this > are > > negligible). > > > > Actually that's not entirely true, It is entirely true that you have to take out your own private insurance, no? I used to work > for a company that sold long term income > protection and we were quite happy to insure self > employed people for income protection provided > their work wasn't excessively risky - but the > nature of the work mattered just as much if you > were employed. Hmm, many professional societies and associations offer this as a benefit (that you can sign up to and pay for), but it is entirely true that you have to sign up to and pay for it; and that many policies specifically exclude the self employed. > > However, if you are conned into taking out payment > protection insurance I'm not at all talking about payment protection. (also know as accident > sickness and unemployment) which some dodgy people > sell calling income protection - where you don't > get underwritten till you claim, you will find it > very hard to claim because they won't cover all > types of sickness and exclude all pre-existing > conditions and it is generally expensive because > banks get paid a small fortune for selling the > stuff. > > I am the first to admit there are some sharp > practices in the insurance market, but there are > decent products out there that you can find if you > get good advice from a decent IFA. The point is not that these policies exist. They do (at a cost). The point is that self-employed people have to pay for them, because they get zero state benefits. With the consequent point that self-employed people will have all sorts of expenses that the employed do not. I think you are going off on a tangent from this issue. PS I've done extensive research with IFAs (in their offices; for a range of big insurer clients, across England and Scotland). Fascinating world :)

Hi Admin, I posted something in the main area (ED) on 30 Nov re checking on your elderly neighbours, and it was almost immediately Lounged. Would love an explanation why - after all, all our elderly neighbours are in ED! In SE22! Post content below ---- "When temperatures fall to sub-zero, the number of deaths from heart attacks peaks three days later, from strokes five days later and from respiratory infections ten days later." (From Met Office website.) Please check on your elderly neighbours...

Just to say this is all still eminently worth pursuing for the longer term - despite the thaw - as this will only the the first of the many cold bites.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also the inland revenue has done mystifying deals > with the likes of Al Fayed etc effectively > allowing them to pay less tax. And just because > something is technically legal, doesn't make it > moral. I go back to my point about fair and reasonable. These people regard 'the amount of tax I should pay' as a starting position in negotiations, which they have no intention of fulfilling. The aim is always to come out ahead. PAYE employees pay proportionately more tax > than the self employed for example, who can offset > expenses against tax (an area vastly abused) Maybe abused by some, but the position taken always has to be defensible viz a viz the tax authorities, with full receipts of every item down to a few pence; and keeping all those records for at least six years. The wealthy can pay good and expensive advisers that will advise them past all these petty hassles. And these people will not be self employed: they'll have a variety of companies covering each of the angles for them, and they'll probably even live in a house - or houses - belonging to such companies. I not so long ago translated a marriage certificate for an extremely wealthy individual (top billionaires worldwide; the money was made by his dad, not him). The invoice was settled by one of his companies. I have no idea how he gets away with that; how a private document can become a business expense paid by your company. But there you go. and > pay less national insurance too. The self-employed pay the same rates of tax as people on PAYE. They pay less NI, but on the other hand the self employed are entitled to far fewer benefits: no sick pay, no maternity, no unemployment, no anything apart from pension (if we ever get those!). As a self-employed person, you could have earned 8 or 9 or 10 grand many months ago, have paid tax and NI, and have no work and no prospect of work and no money but have no entitlement to any benefits. The only way around this is to take out very expensive private insurance for income protection against sickness etc., on top of equally expensive insurance against professional negligence, insurance of business assets etc. Each of these come to several thousand pounds a year, even if you can get them (most insurance companies won't sell income protection to the self employed; and the cases where they actually pay out on this are negligible). The argument of > the very rich is often that the gross amount of > tax they pay is so large that they should somehow > pay a smaller percentage of their income as tax > than the PAYE employee. Except there is only so much caviar you can eat.

Sorry, Wed 8th Dec (not 6th)! Typo (bad memory)

Remember Leona Helmsley. "In 1983 the Helmsleys bought Dunnellen Hall, a 21-room mansion in Greenwich, Connecticut, to use as a weekend retreat. The property cost $11 million, but the Helmsleys wanted to make it even more luxurious than it had been before. Jeremiah McCarthy, a Helmsley executive engineer was initially put in charge of the operation. McCarthy claims that Leona repeatedly demanded that he sign illegal invoices designed to illegally bill personal expenses to the estate. According to Ransdell Peirson's "The Queen of Mean," when McCarthy declined to do so she exploded with tyrannical outbursts claiming, "You're not my fucking partner you'll sign what I tell you to sign."[8] "The remodeling bill came to $8 million, which the Helmsleys were loath to pay? as well as taxes written off the project. A group of contractors went to court to get most of the money; the Helmsleys eventually paid off most of the debt. In 1985, during these proceedings, the contractors revealed that most of their work was being illegally billed to the Helmsleys' hotels as business expenses. The work included a million-dollar dance floor, a silver clock and a mahogany card table.[9] Enraged, the contractors sent a stack of invoices to the New York Post to prove that the Helmsleys were trying to write their work off in this manner. The resulting Post story led to a federal criminal investigation. In 1988, then United States Attorney Rudy Giuliani indicted the Helmsleys and two of their associates on several tax-related charges, as well as extortion.[4] "At trial, a former Helmsley-Spear executive, Paul Ruffino, says that he refused to sign phony invoices illegally billing the company for work done on the Helmsely's Connecticut mansion. Ruffino, originally engaged to assist Helmsley through the Hospitality Management Services arm, says that Leona fired him on several different occasions for refusing to sign the bills, but Harry would usually tell him to ignore her and to come back to work. Another one of the key witnesses was a former housekeeper at the Helmsley home, Elizabeth Baum, who recounted having the following exchange with Leona Helmsley four to six weeks after being hired in September, 1983: I said: "You must pay a lot of taxes". She said: "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."[11] ?Elizabeth Baum, former housekeeper to Helmsley (October 1983) Leona also evicted her daughter-in-law and grandson (14) from their home when her son suddenly died of heart failure. Nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leona_Helmsley Great wealth so often seems to be a combination of good luck, greed and doggedness. Treating others as unfairly as they can get away with (at all levels) also seems to be a common trait: every situation - including the payment of taxes - is seen as a position to be opposed, challenged, negotiated away from, and under no circumstances accepted as reasonable or fair. They never accept what the other side proposes as that is seen as weakness and capitulation. And given that this strategy often results in success for them - they come out ahead - why on earth would they do anything different? The weakness of the 'fair and reasonable' position is that such people don't play that game.

Looks like Thames Water has chosen a rather odd moment to notify some of us of "essential work in your area". On this road, we've got the water off for 6 hours on Wednesday 6th. YMMV.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The key is to start insulating now and building > renewable energy generation now. I started insulating three years ago. I recently finished a whole round of underfloor insulation (against freezing voids), which was messy but fairly quick (as nothing unpleasant discovered). Insulation really is much better than anything we can do with energy: it saves the need for that energy. But I don't see too many neighbours doing it, although a few people have asked for my advice on certain kinds of insulation owing to the dearth of info out there in the public arena. I've promised a couple of people that have written to me by PM that I'd put something up about underfloor insulation, so I will... (in the Lounge)

If you do end up boxing in the staircase (with door), do line the partition with something like Kingspan, which is specifically design to insulate walls. It comes in big sheets and is easy enough to cut. This would be a lot more effective than curtains, heat-loss wise, but would probably cost around 200-250 quid or so DIY-ing it.

I think much, much, much more influential than council housing, or than public school, is the question of Oxbridge. There is a club of Oxbridge that takes you places, whether it is editing a particular magazine, landing a certain job on a certain financial publication, getting appointed to certain corporate boards and a long etc. There appear to be some people who only take other Oxbridge people seriously. Seriously.

Hmmm, I know several barristers who went to state schools... I work with them day to day in several fields. Also professors of law at Oxbridge locations who likewise were not public school. Yes, there are public school people there, but also plenty not (depending on which line of law). The public school peeps I know often did rather off the wall stuff like becoming people in the pop firmament...

oilworker, there are some tossers from public schools, but they are in a minority. After all, how many peeps in this country go to a public (or even private) school? The vast majority of people around us are not the product of a public school. They are the product of a wide variety of backgrounds, including private sector renters, middle class less affluent, council house ambitious, council house not ambitious, the titled and landed, the totally crazy (I've taught kids who couldn't hold a pencil or tie laces aged 7 and 8, from very middle class home) .... and a very long etc. There are many kinds of home, and the parents' housing is only a small part of that.

+1 The curtain solution might be best, but it depends on the layout as to how curtain-able it is. But it would need to be something lined with thermal fabric - otherwise it's not doing a lot in real terms.