Nice people thread part 6 - thrice by twice as nice :)

vivatifosi

michaels wrote: »

I finished the John Grisham and looked for something on the shelf I hadn't read. Most of our books are still in the shed and not being able to face Nicholas Sparks I picked up Chocolat. I have been trying to read it surreptitiously on the tube and fear I am really enjoying it - I feel I need to go out to the pub and shout at the football to make up for this little transgression....

You're so metrosexual michaels. Careful, you'll be wearing a kaftan next;).

lostinrates

I think i could like a man in a kaftan. I don't object to nightshirts.

michaels

I've been accused of many things, but never been that before....

vivatifosi wrote: »

You're so metrosexual michaels. Careful, you'll be wearing a kaftan next;).

PasturesNew

LydiaJ wrote: »

How sad.
Is that how he would have perceived it Pastures? That paying for a care home = the govt getting the money?

Yes, because if he'd altered his will and left us his money immediately they'd have not got their hands on it .... and the outcome for mum wouldn't differ from what's happened as she had enough of her own to get accepted into where she's gone (you have to prove you can pay 24 months before they let you in, so you're not going to suddenly expect the Govt to pick up the tab). But ... if the old lives more than 5-6 years, it'll start to be dad's money that's spent on it.

So, you guys are probably already set up the way he should have been ... but those 'tricks' weren't part of his knowledge... and "he knew best" all the time, so it was not open for discussion or viewing.

To be honest, the day he died, I don't think he believed he would be dying... he thought he'd get a bit better ... and just be less able for awhile (a few years) and would outlive mum anyway.

chewmylegoff

silvercar wrote: »

Very dodgy - either you are getting a benefit in kind and so should be declaring that on your P11D or the company is making payment on your behalf and it should be subject to income tax. I know this because we inquired if it was possible and was told that this loophole was closed in the 1980s!

Yah. The company certainly can make a charitable donation to the school that is tax deductible, but if that payment is for school fees it is directors remuneration. The test to apply is basically "if the company didn't make the payment, would my children be able to attend the school". If the answer is "no" then the payment is a remuneration payment, as you are receiving the benefit of an education for your child (charitable donations are only tax deductible if you do not get a benefit in return).

NB the test cannot be avoided by having a contract with the school that says the education is free and the donation does not give the child the right to the education, hmrc will look at the substance of the matter - are the donations really fees dressed up as donations. There is guidance on their website somewhere.

PasturesNew

All NPs.... if you went to a new town with no contacts and £1 in your pocket.... by which route would you attempt to make your first £1million?

Spirit_2

michaels wrote: »

What if a private provider was willing to provide schooling for the amount the state pays per pupil, any reason why we shouldn't contract out the whole thing?

No good reason that makes it a show stopper. It is political rather than rational. Probably UK is a good example of the inefficiencies of monopolies. A good standard of universal healthcare and education should be available free at the point of delivery.

They do not have to be universally provided by the state. The state can set the 'standards'. Any provider being welcome.

Topping up from your personal resources should be by personal choice.

lostinrates

PasturesNew wrote: »

Yes, because if he'd altered his will and left us his money immediately they'd have not got their hands on it .... and the outcome for mum wouldn't differ from what's happened as she had enough of her own to get accepted into where she's gone (you have to prove you can pay 24 months before they let you in, so you're not going to suddenly expect the Govt to pick up the tab). But ... if the old lives more than 5-6 years, it'll start to be dad's money that's spent on it.

So, you guys are probably already set up the way he should have been ... but those 'tricks' weren't part of his knowledge... and "he knew best" all the time, so it was not open for discussion or viewing.

To be honest, the day he died, I don't think he believed he would be dying... he thought he'd get a bit better ... and just be less able for awhile (a few years) and would outlive mum anyway.

In our marriage its 'our' money. The surviving one would expect 'our' money to pay for them. It seems to me thats the right way to be.

michaels

Its very like that in our household except it is all DWs money...

lostinrates wrote: »

In our marriage its 'our' money. The surviving one would expect 'our' money to pay for them. It seems to me thats the right way to be.

lostinrates

Spirit wrote: »

No good reason that makes it a show stopper. It is political rather than rational. Probably UK is a good example of the inefficiencies of monopolies. A good standard of universal healthcare and education should be available free at the point of delivery.

They do not have to be universally provided by the state. The state can set the 'standards'. Any provider being welcome.

Topping up from your personal resources should be by personal choice.

They are not universally provided by state though...health care in particular. The private but free at pointof delivery and looks like nhs minor injuries and op place my mother went to last year and the year beore was excellent, truely good.