George Osborne MUST now U-Turn 'Granny Tax'!

margaretclare

jem16 wrote: »

Teajug - I see you have now deleted your previous two posts and quite rightly so, although it's quoted in RichardJ's post.

Your posts smack of envy and do yourself no favours. You now complain of margaretclare preaching on another forum but you seem now to be preaching on here.

I haven't always agreed with everything margaretclare has said but it seems that both she and her husband have worked hard over the years and are entitled to the pensions, both state and private, that they receive. If they now need a little bit of extra help and Attendance Allowance is what will do it then why should they not apply for it.

Would you rather have an illness or disability that made you eligible or would you rather have your health?

Good grief - this thread has really descended to the depths.

Yes, it really has!

About the disabilities, DH has a way of dealing with people who haven't blue badges who park in disabled spaces: 'You've taken my space. Would you like my disability too?'

About AA. This helps us to remain mobile by helping with car expenses, because it is a given that the 'free bus pass' is useless to us. If we were under 65 the mobility component of DLA would be available to apply for. Over 65, it is assumed that either you don't need to go anywhere, you can somehow struggle as far as a bus stop and on and off buses driven by wannabe Jenson Buttons, or you're content to remain indoors all the time staring at the walls.

Yes, we each have a state pension in our own right and some private pension provision. Not as much as it might be. One of DH's previous employers was a bit like the late Robert Maxwell in regard to the way he treated the company's pension fund. When told by the company accountants it was under-funded he responded by going bankrupt. He and his family didn't lose out but a lot of his employees did.

I don't recall that I have ever told anyone else how they should live.

I can't believe that all these futile arguments are still going on.

gadgetmind

margaretclare wrote: »

When told by the company accountants it was under-funded he responded by going bankrupt.

Why would an individual go bankrupt because a company's pensions are under-funded? Sorry, but that makes no sense, or am I missing something?

margaretclare

gadgetmind wrote: »

Why would an individual go bankrupt because a company's pensions are under-funded? Sorry, but that makes no sense, or am I missing something?

I wasn't there at the time, that's what I've been told.

jamesd

He may have taken the company bankrupt rather than himself. If not, he may have had some personal guarantees that would have been invoked if the company became insolvent and may have gone bankrupt to protect himself from those liabilities.

Moby

srcandas wrote: »

It is largely traced through VAT on parts, and profiling. An example is my local decorator. He reclaims VAT on paint so it is obvious he has to use it. Yes he admits to the odd job cash in hand but this is largely for old ladies who are the main beneficiaries. However many imagine he pays no tax at all - he wishes

Moby I know the black economy of carpenters, plumbers, builders, etc. is frustrating. However while very visible I don't think that it is as enormous in terms of percentage of economy as it's perceived.

I am in the IT business working for large organisations and the opposite applies to us. Not only do we have a massive red tape burden but are also subject to VAT and tax inspections. The last time the VAT man came (a full day preparing and helping him) he said we were not claiming enough. For example why were we not claiming for the parts of our houses we use as offices? The answer is that doing so would leave us open to more accountant costs to justify it, more time to administer it, and leave us open to expensive investigation. So there are two sides to the coin and I think people like us are more common than at first might appear.

I look at entrepreneurs as those who take risk to develop business opportunity thus creating jobs and wealth.

Quite how we create a system that encourages such behaviour while clamping down on those fiddling the system is I think very very difficult. Perhaps the answer lies in creating a more honest and responsible society rather than creating more rules but from the evidence of the proportion of selfish posts one sees here I'm not convinced we are making much progress in that direction :beer:

Some fair points there. I suppose its all about having an accurate assessment as to the level of the black economy. I suspect its actually a huge issue in London where I live and I feel resentment towards such individuals...because they are my neighbours. I think the word entrepreneur has become politically hijacked and is vastly overused. People who create a business don't do it for the social good, they do it for selfish reasons. They don't say to themselves...I'm putting my energy into this or that or I'm driven because.....I'm going to contribute to the welfare of the fabric of society. They do it because it excites them, gives them a buzz, drive, power etc. Job creation for others is a corollary resulting from that energy. As I said I have no problem when that happens and the spin offs benefit everybody...but its haphazard and should not form a major plank of a Govmts policy. I've just come back from one of the most entrepreneurial countries...India. There is no red tape there stifling innovation. You have billionaires in Mumbai, Chennai etc but the poverty is indescribable and the energy and innovation of the 'haves' is being used to feather their own nests...not for the general good! You need balance IMO...Sweden is a good template for me!:beer:

teajug

margaretclare wrote: »

Yes, it really has!

margaretclare wrote: »

About the disabilities, DH has a way of dealing with people who haven't blue badges who park in disabled spaces: 'You've taken my space. Would you like my disability too?'

Why would anyone want your DH disabilities, why woudl they as they may have ten more disabilities than him.

Originall posted by jem16
Would you rather have an illness or disability that made you eligible or would you rather have your health?

I got far more disabilities then Margaretclare husband and would like to swap anytime. I do not feel the need though to post about my disabilities on an open forum in order to get a point across.

teajug

Moby wrote: »

Some fair points there. I suppose its all about having an accurate assessment as to the level of the black economy. I suspect its actually a huge issue in London where I live and I feel resentment towards such individuals...because they are my neighbours. I think the word entrepreneur has become politically hijacked and is vastly overused. People who create a business don't do it for the social good, they do it for selfish reasons. They don't say to themselves...I'm putting my energy into this or that or I'm driven because.....I'm going to contribute to the welfare of the fabric of society. They do it because it excites them, gives them a buzz, drive, power etc. Job creation for others is a corollary resulting from that energy. As I said I have no problem when that happens and the spin offs benefit everybody...but its haphazard and should not form a major plank of a Govmts policy. I've just come back from one of the most entrepreneurial countries...India. There is no red tape there stifling innovation. You have billionaires in Mumbai, Chennai etc but the poverty is indescribable and the energy and innovation of the 'haves' is being used to feather their own nests...not for the general good! You need balance IMO...Sweden is a good template for me!:beer:

I think the Sweden system is good also, it is must more equal than UK, I understand that their tax system is open and available for anyone to inspect therfore no loopholes for anyone to use like here in UK.

I like the way they deal with banks extract from their website about their plan for banks.

Sweden's Plan
Sweden didn't just bail out its banks by simply having the government take over the "bad" debt; instead, it required banks to count their losses and issue warrants to the Swedish government before it received recapitalization.
All money and assets were to be accounted for to make sure all of the "fat" was trimmed.
The government also formed two new agencies. The first was an agency that supervised institutions that needed recapitalization and the second agency sold the assets the banks held as collateral.
The government then "bled" shareholders and allowed for "no sacred cows," according the article.
In a short time, the government had seized a large part of the Swedish banking industry and the new agencies drained most of the banks' share capital before it decided to put cash into the economy.
When the markets eventually stabilized, the government took the banks public again

http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/news/articles/miscellaneous/swedish-economic-collapse-and-recovery.aspx

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/9509/a/94915

gadgetmind

jamesd wrote: »

He may have taken the company bankrupt rather than himself.

In the UK, only individuals and partnerships can go bankrupt.

If not, he may have had some personal guarantees that would have been invoked if the company became insolvent and may have gone bankrupt to protect himself from those liabilities.

Maybe, but if so, he barely walked away from it covered in glory and drowning in money.

browniej

teajug wrote:

I got far more disabilities then Margaretclare husband and would like to swap anytime. I do not feel the need though to post about my disabilities on an open forum in order to get a point across.

It appears that you now have.

srcandas

teajug wrote: »

I think the Sweden system is good ...............

I agree we can and should learn from countries that seem to be getting it right but I would be careful comparing the UK with countries that have very small populations and enormous valuable reserves just waiting to be dug up. :beer: