Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Padge

NHS

109 posts in this topic

Anyway, back on topic...

Padge I do hope your Mrs is recovering well - she's not African is she?

worse than that ... Lancastrian.

Seriously, I hope she's well and can make a full recovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, back on topic...

Padge I do hope your Mrs is recovering well - she's not African is she?

Its my mum actually, she's doing well thanks, getting back some of the tax money she has paid in,

Hoping she'll be discharged tomorrow to an intermediate care home before going home a few days later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they are not, the government has decreed that those are not taxable, therefore there is no tax to avoid. you are just putting your money where the government wants you to. :rolleyes:

Exactly. There was a guy from one of the companies who dream up these schemes in front of a Parliamentary committee the other day. He freely admitted that his job was to find new loopholes. As HMRC closes one avoidance scheme, he dreams up another. There is no similarity between his activity and ISA's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who takes out a private pension or an ISA is effectively subscribing to a tax-avoidance scheme.

You do not seen to understand the meaning of. tax evasion and its legality. Hence your point about. ISAs etc. is totally irrelevant.

No they are not, the government has decreed that those are not taxable, therefore there is no tax to avoid. you are just putting your money where the government wants you to. :rolleyes:

Exactly. There was a guy ... freely admitted that his job was to find new loopholes ... There is no similarity between his activity and ISA's.

Hypocrisy Rules. OK! B)

I am self-employed and have both a private pension scheme and an ISA policy. Just because I subscribe to Government-authorised tax-avoidance doesn't stop it being tax-avoidance. The same goes for anyone else on this board who has the financial prudence to subscribe to these schemes.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to add to these investments for the past three years because of prevailing economics. If I had remained as a public sector employee, those economics would not have affected me ... I'd have an annual pay rise and my pension contributions would have been maintained by the public purse ... i.e. by the other members of this forum. There's no point in whingeing, I made my choice and am happy to live with it. There's always next year to look forward to.

However, if I do have a decent next year, HMRC wouldn't give a monkeys about the past three years and would have every last drop of recoverable taxation if I didn't have the common sense to add to my pension scheme and ISA.

It's easy to point the tax-avoidance finger at high-earning freelance workers such as Jimmy Carr, Bradley Wiggins and the like, but much harder to admit that you'd do the same in their position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypocrisy Rules. OK! B)

I am self-employed and have both a private pension scheme and an ISA policy. Just because I subscribe to Government-authorised tax-avoidance doesn't stop it being tax-avoidance. The same goes for anyone else on this board who has the financial prudence to subscribe to these schemes.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to add to these investments for the past three years because of prevailing economics. If I had remained as a public sector employee, those economics would not have affected me ... I'd have an annual pay rise and my pension contributions would have been maintained by the public purse ... i.e. by the other members of this forum. There's no point in whingeing, I made my choice and am happy to live with it. There's always next year to look forward to.

However, if I do have a decent next year, HMRC wouldn't give a monkeys about the past three years and would have every last drop of recoverable taxation if I didn't have the common sense to add to my pension scheme and ISA.

It's easy to point the tax-avoidance finger at high-earning freelance workers such as Jimmy Carr, Bradley Wiggins and the like, but much harder to admit that you'd do the same in their position.

You sound like you resent paying tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all; this country's welfare state and public service provision is the envy of the world and must be preserved. I am happy to pay a reasonable proportion of my income in tax.

However, that doesn't mean that I agree with the way that the application and control of public money is currently being disbursed, and consider that there should be stricter controls. One way of ensuring stricter control is for the budget for certain aspects of the national purse (e.g. foreign aid, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, free mobility cars every 3 years, handouts to immigrants) to be curtailed by a difficulty in the exchequer obtaining unlimited funds. In my opinion, much of the funds for these aspects have been largely culled from the higher education budget, with students no longer getting grants and free university fees. Hard working parents and grandparents now have to fund their childrens education and it is effectively a lever to price the working class out of an education.

I am already committed to paying tax (including income tax, Vat, fuel tax, corporation tax etc); however, for the reason above, I am also keen on minimising the cumulative levy.

On a personal level, using a scheme to reduce income tax liability is no different to changing your car for one that uses less fuel and/or carries a lower road fund tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

free mobility cars every 3 years,

As a matter of record, they are not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this article discusses the source of this myth:

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/disability_benefits_motability_ADHD_Mail-3025

Its not completely a myth though. People can get brand new cars every year for the slightest disability - how is that reasonable? Why does everyone on disability have to have a new car? What's wrong with a decent one?

I know a guy, who has been on the sick since the early 80's with 'tennis elbow'. Every year since 1988 (at least) he has had a new 'people carrier' type car. Why he needs this is anyones guess but he does because he can, probably edged on by the dealership. Of course, this doesn't mean the scheme should be scrapped, many people benefit from such a scheme. But if we're struggling for cash in the NHS, then a clampdown on pee takers is a reasonable start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not completely a myth though. People can get brand new cars every year for the slightest disability - how is that reasonable? Why does everyone on disability have to have a new car? What's wrong with a decent one?

I know a guy, who has been on the sick since the early 80's with 'tennis elbow'. Every year since 1988 (at least) he has had a new 'people carrier' type car. Why he needs this is anyones guess but he does because he can, probably edged on by the dealership. Of course, this doesn't mean the scheme should be scrapped, many people benefit from such a scheme. But if we're struggling for cash in the NHS, then a clampdown on pee takers is a reasonable start.

But if he is getting a new car then there's a good to high chance he's losing out on benefit elsewhere (obviously there's a debate about whether he should be getting benefit at all or at what level).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if he is getting a new car then there's a good to high chance he's losing out on benefit elsewhere (obviously there's a debate about whether he should be getting benefit at all or at what level).

Yes, he loses a certain benefit in return but no way does it come anywhere near the cost of a new car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not completely a myth though. People can get brand new cars every year for the slightest disability - how is that reasonable? Why does everyone on disability have to have a new car?

your first sentence is well wide of the mark.

There is a huge number of disabilities which preclude people from driving without a modified car, They are adapted to suit the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your first sentence is well wide of the mark.

There is a huge number of disabilities which preclude people from driving without a modified car, They are adapted to suit the individual.

So how come the guy I know gets it with 'tennis elbow'. (100% true). Luckily for him though, it doesn't affect his ability to play snooker in the local WMC.

I aren't arguing they should be scrapped or anything, just that if we need to save money, start with the pee takers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your first sentence is well wide of the mark.

There is a huge number of disabilities which preclude people from driving without a modified car, They are adapted to suit the individual.

I can quote two instances of personal knowledge regarding the provision of new ford cars for people who I know: -

1. the car was not actually for the person I know ... a former work colleague ... it was for his next door neighbour who could not drive. The neighbour nominated my former colleague as his driver who would take him shopping and on visits. my colleague drove it to his own work every day, leaving his own car for his wife to use.

2. A chap I know had a heart attack and had to retire early about ten years ago. He gets a new car, arguably as a reward for being a heavy smoker for many years.

Both of the car-recipients could walk and were not actually housebound. I don't know about the first one but the second one still occasionally walks to and from the shops and club ... around half a mile away. To be fair, it would not be appropriate for him to carry heavy shopping bags etc on foot and he would need transport on shopping trips.

I certainly think that such people deserve some help to cope wth essential travel requirements but can't see how, in Bradford and Keighley, it wouldn't be cheaper to give such people £30 per week in benefits to pay for three return taxi journeys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how come the guy I know gets it with 'tennis elbow'. (100% true). Luckily for him though, it doesn't affect his ability to play snooker in the local WMC.

I aren't arguing they should be scrapped or anything, just that if we need to save money, start with the pee takers.

dunno

maybe he's committing fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe that the truth of the matter will bear any relation to the story in the Daily Mail?

Every single time their fantasies stories about immigration, benefits, the young, the old, what causes cancer, what prevents cancer, exam results, MMR, Autism, Foreigners, pies or the EU are given even a cursory comparison with the actual facts they are generally seen to be so far from the truth that you could almost think it was willful and only being done to serve an agenda of the Editor and Publishers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe that the truth of the matter will bear any relation to the story in the Daily Mail?

Every single time their fantasies stories about immigration, benefits, the young, the old, what causes cancer, what prevents cancer, exam results, MMR, Autism, Foreigners, pies or the EU are given even a cursory comparison with the actual facts they are generally seen to be so far from the truth that you could almost think it was willful and only being done to serve an agenda of the Editor and Publishers.

The problem is maybe the Mail may be correct just once, but no intelligent person will believe them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That will predoninantly be pensioners who have paid something into the pot during their working lives. Many of whom will have fought for this country.

That's irrelevant to the discussion. There are more pensioners being paid more in pensions and non-means tested universal benefits that at any time in history.

To have fought for this country - by which I assume you mean in the Second World War - a person will have to be at least 85.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's irrelevant to the discussion. There are more pensioners being paid more in pensions and non-means tested universal benefits that at any time in history.

No it's not irrelevant. Ultimately there is a single overall public purse to pay for debt repayments, welfare, the police, armed services, libraries, roads, education etc. A lower level of sponging, an absence of futile wars and more prudent control of budgets would leave plenty of money to pay for the pensioners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dunno

maybe he's committing fraud.

No, its all 'above board' so to speak. He must be near 'retirement' age now so not sure what will happen then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not irrelevant. Ultimately there is a single overall public purse to pay for debt repayments, welfare, the police, armed services, libraries, roads, education etc. A lower level of sponging, an absence of futile wars and more prudent control of budgets would leave plenty of money to pay for the pensioners.

And pensioners - many of whom will have been scroungers all their lives despite being white and possibly an occasional soldier - should be protected above everyone else because ... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017