Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Carl the Llama]

10 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Depends what you class as 'work'

 

My wife doesn't deal with clients or the business finances but she puts up with my mood swings, listens to my moans and it's highly supportive of me.

 

Actually, I think I'll call her my 'Coach'. Yeah, that works.

 

And at only £480 a month, she's a cheap coach at that 

That is immoral.  You should be paying her a living wage.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

13 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Depends what you class as 'work'

 

My wife doesn't deal with clients or the business finances but she puts up with my mood swings, listens to my moans and it's highly supportive of me.

 

Actually, I think I'll call her my 'Coach'. Yeah, that works.

 

And at only £480 a month, she's a cheap coach at that 

Even in that context, calling your wife cheap makes you a braver man than I.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Lawyers, accountants, estate agents ect are all just kulak parasites who produce nothing. Get rid of em

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Depends what you class as 'work'

 

My wife doesn't deal with clients or the business finances but she puts up with my mood swings, listens to my moans and it's highly supportive of me.

 

Actually, I think I'll call her my 'Coach'. Yeah, that works.

 

And at only £480 a month, she's a cheap coach at that 

Everybody's wife does that but if they have a normal job they can't use that excuse to get her paid by the company. What a completely ridiculous idea. The fact is she doesn't work for the company.

[Strokes]

33 minutes ago, toddybad said:

If she isn't actually working for the company then of course it is immoral.

So what if she had to give up work because the self employed work is out of town and requires the husband to stop away and she cant find work that fits in around school hours? Bear in mind its not like they will be earning £11500 extra out of this, its actually near enough £2500. So its alot less than she would get on JSA.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Lawyers, accountants, estate agents ect are all just kulak parasites who produce nothing. Get rid of em

Who will pay all the taxes?

[Izzy]

11 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Everybody's wife does that but if they have a normal job they can't use that excuse to get her paid by the company. What a completely ridiculous idea. The fact is she doesn't work for the company.

I know lots of shareholders and Directors of large corporates who do fvck all work. This is just on a smaller scale 

 

Edit: Actually on reflection, these shares may have been 'gifted' to my wife in which case she doesn't have to do any work for them. The only problem now is that she's entitled to a vote at our big AGM every year when we have a posh lunch together at Pizza Hut 

Edited 26 October 2017 by Izzy Muzzett

[Sharpe's Fox]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Who will pay all the taxes?

They get assigned new work that benefits society.

[Strokes]

Just now, Sharpe's Fox said:

They get assigned new work that benefits society.

Could they clean my shed out?

[Innovindil]

While we're on the topic. 

 

Moving house tomorrow. Got shed loads of stuff to shift, if anyone fancies making a bit of cash in hand, lmk. 

 

(don't tell toddy. ) 

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

While we're on the topic. 

 

Moving house tomorrow. Got shed loads of stuff to shift, if anyone fancies making a bit of cash in hand, lmk. 

 

(don't tell toddy. ) 

If youre serious ask wymeswold fox, pretty sure he said he was looking for work atm.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

So what if she had to give up work because the self employed work is out of town and requires the husband to stop away and she cant find work that fits in around school hours? Bear in mind its not like they will be earning £11500 extra out of this, its actually near enough £2500. So its alot less than she would get on JSA.

This same thing happens to employed people who have to work away. I'm genuinely stunned you guys have justified this to yourselves to the extent you think you can argue your morally right.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I know lots of shareholders and Directors of large corporates who do fvck all work. This is just on a smaller scale 

 

Edit: Actually on reflection, these shares may have been 'gifted' to my wife in which case she doesn't have to do any work for them. The only problem now is that she's entitled to a vote at our big AGM every year when we have a posh lunch together at Pizza Hut 

It isn't a smaller scale when 6m self employed are at it.

[Sampson]

49 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It isn't a smaller scale when 6m self employed are at it.

Damn all those Uber drivers and Deliveroo cyclists trying to get their spouses in on their massive profits! 

[Strokes]

7 hours ago, toddybad said:

This same thing happens to employed people who have to work away. I'm genuinely stunned you guys have justified this to yourselves to the extent you think you can argue your morally right.

Actually you have a choice when employed, you cant be forced to work over 45 hours including driving. You can say no, i do regularly.

[Buce]

10 hours ago, Strokes said:

Are you self emplyed buce?

 

Yep. 

[Izzy]

8 hours ago, toddybad said:

This same thing happens to employed people who have to work away. I'm genuinely stunned you guys have justified this to yourselves to the extent you think you can argue your morally right.

You’re so cute when you get angry 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

You’re so cute when you get angry 

Stunned, not angry.

As far as I'm concerned, tax avoidance is on a par with benefit fraud at best.

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Stunned, not angry.

As far as I'm concerned, tax avoidance is on a par with benefit fraud at best.

For the umpteenth time, it’s not tax avoidance!!

 

Distribution of shares is all part of ‘household’ tax and perfectly within the law. Nothing fraudulent about it.

 

I don’t mind you picking on Google, Amazon etc. but leave us minnows alone. We’re not doing any harm and just trying to earn a crust to support our families.

 

And if we can save a few quid in tax it means we’ve got a little more disposable income to spend which helps boost the economy.

[Alf Bentley]

27 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Stunned, not angry.

As far as I'm concerned, tax avoidance is on a par with benefit fraud at best.

 

Tax avoidance - the sort of thing Izzy is describing - is not on a par with benefit fraud as it's perfectly legal.

You can question whether it should be allowed and can question the morality, but not the legality.

The same applies, on an infinitely larger scale, to Google, Amazon & co - their tax avoidance is perfectly legal, just very questionable whether it should be allowed.

 

Tax evasion is a different matter - and that includes self-employed people who take cash in hand and don't declare that income for tax.

That definitely IS on a par with benefit fraud - illegal abuse of fiscal obligations. Yet the people who moan about "scroungers" committing benefit fraud are often the same people who take cash and under-declare their income for tax.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

For the umpteenth time, it’s not tax avoidance!!

 

Distribution of shares is all part of ‘household’ tax and perfectly within the law. Nothing fraudulent about it.

 

I don’t mind you picking on Google, Amazon etc. but leave us minnows alone. We’re not doing any harm and just trying to earn a crust to support our families.

 

And if we can save a few quid in tax it means we’ve got a little more disposable income to spend which helps boost the economy.

 

It's not fraudulent but is (perfectly legal) tax avoidance, in my view. Would you have assigned shares to your wife even if there had been no tax advantage accruing? If so, then it wouldn't be tax avoidance.

But my understanding is that you did it for the (perfectly legal) tax benefits, in which case it is (perfectly legal) tax avoidance.

 

Your last point is pretty weak, mind. A benefit fraudster or a bank robber could say that their extra disposable income helped to boost the economy.  Though, unlike you, they'd be doing something illegal.

Plus, the tax you avoided paying would have boosted the economy anyway as it would have been available for public spending. 

 

Btw, I'm not making some big moral point here. As you say, there's a big difference between (legal) tax avoidance by "minnows" and by massive global corporations earning billions.

I'm self-employed myself and am painfully aware of the disadvantages of self-employment compared to PAYE employment. Small businesses have to find their own clients, invest in their business, take risks with no guaranteed income and often have to deal with fluctuations in income. Also, a lot of self-employed (not all) are worse off than a lot in employment, despite having skills and taking such risks. When I was younger, I worked in the civil service but left whereas several of my friends continued their careers. I went back to do a languages degree and then set up a translation business that is struggling now but that had a surfeit of clients/work for many years. Yet, having achieved a promotion or two, my civil service mates were all earning more than twice what I was, even when the business was thriving and generating a viable household income. Of course, that's partly because I'm not a great businessman, but even so.....small businesses deserve some leeway within the law. Tax avoidance by Google & co is a different matter.... 

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Yep. 

So whats your take on all this? Do you have an accountant helping you minimise your tax payments?

[Strokes]

10 hours ago, toddybad said:

This same thing happens to employed people who have to work away. I'm genuinely stunned you guys have justified this to yourselves to the extent you think you can argue your morally right.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/self-employed-wages-still-lower-than-two-decades-ago-a7366116.html

You champion rights for zhc and better pay all round but when someone is getting an ok deal you victimise them. Im completely stunned by your attitude on this.

[Guest MattP]

It's the Joos  (again)

[Realist Guy In The Room]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's the Joos  (again)

Not particularly surprised.  The guy seems to have every prejudice going lurking in his locker.

 

This is a classic case of how disorganised the Labour party were (would say are but since the GE, they do seem to be a bit more streamlined).  They didn’t think they’d win the seat so just shoved any old cvnt there.  It would be interesting to see the backgrounds of the MP’s who also won seemingly unobtainable seats.

[Strokes]

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2015/02/couples-now-able-to-register-to-shift-unused-tax-allowance-between-spouses

Looks like tax avoidance is available to all.