Tax Credits

Mistermeaner

westernpromise wrote: »

The free coffee in Waitrose is revolting. It's like the free coffee that comes out of a machine at work.

the trick is to pull the cup away after a few seconds, when the cup is only half full (or half empty depending on your outlook) - stops it getting over diluted

I got told off in my waitrose the other day for eating sushi in the cafe (sushi I had just purchased from the same waitrose), I had also purchased drinks and cakes from the cafe.

I gave them my best middleclass frown and politely agreed not to do it again

#1stworldproblems

antrobus

princeofpounds wrote: »

I find that promotion so funny; people are so desperate for their free coffee, they fight like rats over it at the customer service desk.

You can avoid the fight at customer services by taking your own reusable cup.

westernpromise wrote: »

The free coffee in Waitrose is revolting. It's like the free coffee that comes out of a machine at work.

I find it perfectly acceptable. Mind you, I do hammer up the strength button to 5 or 6.

dktreesea

antrobus wrote: »

Presumably because the 24% of SMEs that do employ someone, are those that actually do employ the 60%?

Although I would point out that there are very few businesses that "don't employ anyone". Someone has to run the business.

It's actually "76% of businesses did not employ anyone aside from the owner", and since there are 4.1m of them, that is still a lot of people.




And?

All that means is that 1.9m people have created their own employement.

Mmm. 4.1 million people who apparently aren't doing well enough to be able to afford to employ anyone else? If we followed some other developed countries examples and didn't subsidise those who choose to be self employed, I wonder how many of those "self employed" would become unemployed?


As to the 1.9m, I'm all for people creating their own employment - go forth and do your own thing - as long as it isn't on the taxpayer's dime.

dktreesea

princeofpounds wrote: »

I find that promotion so funny; people are so desperate for their free coffee, they fight like rats over it at the customer service desk.

Really? At our closest one, people come along to you, meet and greet types who are usually perched at the service desk , asking you if you'ld like a cup of coffee or tea.


I find Waitrose shoppers are two types, dedicated foodies all, but one knows what they want, go straight there, fill up their baskets (usually) and leave. The other has no idea what's for dinner, wanders around also with a basket, so they can sip on their coffee, checks out the cakes and "discovers" things they haven't seen in a long time. Things like Fentiman's Dandelion and Burdock (so much for getting something for dinner).


On the other hand, other customers have found a fang, frog, locust and venomous spider lurking in their food from Waitrose....

antrobus

dktreesea wrote: »

Mmm. 4.1 million people who apparently aren't doing well enough to be able to afford to employ anyone else? .

Or 4.1 million people who simply aren't interested in employing anyone else. Because the business is nothing more than the owner selling their own services to a variety of clients. Such as a barrister, an IT contractor, a plumber ..... (There is a long list.:))

dktreesea wrote: »

...If we followed some other developed countries examples and didn't subsidise those who choose to be self employed, I wonder how many of those "self employed" would become unemployed? ...

What specific examples from other developed countries do you have in mind?

dktreesea wrote: »

...As to the 1.9m, I'm all for people creating their own employment - go forth and do your own thing - as long as it isn't on the taxpayer's dime.

Do you have any evidence that suggests how many of them are on the taxpayer's dime?

sequence

I'm not sure why dktreesea thinks the 4.1m are being subsidised because thay aren't employing anyone ? If anything it's more likely that those employing are being subsidised by tax credits than those who aren't. Employing people isn't any measure of success. I'm one of those 4.1m, and no I don't get subsidised by anyone. I make a good living doing what I do, and I choose not to employ anyone, mainly because it's a major pain in the !!! to employ people.

Pennywise

From the FSB website:-

Small businesses accounted for 99.3% of all private sector businesses at the start of 2015 and 99.9% were small or medium-sized (SMEs).

Total employment in SMEs was 15.6 million; 60% of all private sector employment in the UK.

The combined annual turnover of SMEs was £1.8 trillion, 47% of all private sector turnover in the UK.

SMEs account for at least 99% of the businesses in every main industry sector.



Just shows how important the small/medium businesses are to the economy, despite lots of people thinking it's all about the multinationals and public sector!

CLAPTON

Being self employed makes one eligible for benefits including wtc and HB.

An example of being SE is selling the Big Issue a few days a week.

No idea of how many SE people are making very low or zero profit just as a device to claim 'working' benefits.

There was a lady Michelle on Question Time a few weeks ago who burst into tears about the reduction in her wtc : it seemed that she was a zero profit business running a nail bar from her front room but claiming a lot of benefits.

In sufficient data to makes any conclusions but the logic of the situation leads one to suppose that there are quite a lot of zombie SE 'businesses'.

borkid

dktreesea wrote: »

Mmm. 4.1 million people who apparently aren't doing well enough to be able to afford to employ anyone else?

I know a few self employed musicians who are doing very well but don't employ anyone. Who would they employ? They might buy in services to promote them or say an accountant but they wouldn't actually employ anyone. I am sure others can think of other professions where the self employed are doing well but don't employ anyone.
What's your definition of doing well?

gadgetmind

CLAPTON wrote: »

No idea of how many SE people are making very low or zero profit just as a device to claim 'working' benefits.

My wife is SE just so she can pay class 2 to earn state pension. Her paid employment falls short of the LEL, and class 2 is cheaper and more reliable than top ups.