UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
Timsta said:
More on the VAT issue: http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2014/12/17/new-eu-tax-law-...
Again, an article heavily loaded with misinformation and hyperbole. The idea that doing a quarterly VAT return is in any way complex or onerous is patently absurd to anyone who has ever done one. This is how I do mine:1. Log on to the Govt Gateway (enter userid and password)
2. Click to go to the VAT Return section
3. Enter the gross income for the quarter (one number)
4. Enter the net VAT due to HMRC (in my case 14.5% of the gross figure, for the micro businesses this will be 0)
5. Press Submit
6. Print the return that is produced for my records (actually save it as a pdf, no need for physical records)
If you've signed up for the MOSS scheme then HMRC will do all the rest for you.
It's entirely possible to run all the accounts for a small business on a spreadsheet, I've been doing it this way for nearly 10 years now, and I turn over considerably more than £81k, but if one doesn't want any hassle at all, an online system like Kashflow will do it all for you, including calculating the VAT due. Anyone who is running an online business would be able to sort this stuff out with no effort.
And how much would this cost for a tiny business turning over 81k/year? £5 per month. The micro businesses will make more than that back in the VAT difference between what they charge the customer and what they pay HMRC.
Edited by Gaspode on Thursday 18th December 06:53
NicD said:
This thread is about politics, about our present life in the UK (for me, England) and the future.
If you are happy with the way the UK operates now, then start to defend the various deficiencies that are the reason d'être of UKIP supporters.
Then we can have a debate.
There are undoubtedly a large number of problems both structural and cyclical within the UK economy, but to suggest that anyone who doesn't support UKIP hasn't got an approach to dealing with them is patently absurd.If you are happy with the way the UK operates now, then start to defend the various deficiencies that are the reason d'être of UKIP supporters.
Then we can have a debate.
Here are some numbers:
1. Amount per person per day that the UK Government is spending: £30.00
2. Amount per person per day that the interest payments on the deficit is costing: £2.00
3. Amount per person per day that membership of the EU costs: £0.30
Cutting public spending and reducing the deficit are important and should be the focus of our activity. Taking an enormous risk on leaving the EU for the sake of saving a few quid is not.
Gaspode said:
There are undoubtedly a large number of problems both structural and cyclical within the UK economy, but to suggest that anyone who doesn't support UKIP hasn't got an approach to dealing with them is patently absurd.
Here are some numbers:
1. Amount per person per day that the UK Government is spending: £30.00
2. Amount per person per day that the interest payments on the deficit is costing: £2.00
3. Amount per person per day that membership of the EU costs: £0.30
Cutting public spending and reducing the deficit are important and should be the focus of our activity. Taking an enormous risk on leaving the EU for the sake of saving a few quid is not.
erm, are they not connected?Here are some numbers:
1. Amount per person per day that the UK Government is spending: £30.00
2. Amount per person per day that the interest payments on the deficit is costing: £2.00
3. Amount per person per day that membership of the EU costs: £0.30
Cutting public spending and reducing the deficit are important and should be the focus of our activity. Taking an enormous risk on leaving the EU for the sake of saving a few quid is not.
Is the reason to the leave the EU some jolly jape dreamt up on a whim, or is it to be able to control immigration thus having an effect on UK nationals employment and a portion of the benefit costs.
The saving of the EU tithe is icing.
don4l said:
Greg66 said:
don4l said:
Do you think that it is funny to just make stuff up?
Well, that UKIP poster is laughable. Does that count as funny? You should post that in the "Sean Connery joke thread". They will love it! You will become their God.
Gaspode said:
NicD said:
This thread is about politics, about our present life in the UK (for me, England) and the future.
If you are happy with the way the UK operates now, then start to defend the various deficiencies that are the reason d'être of UKIP supporters.
Then we can have a debate.
There are undoubtedly a large number of problems both structural and cyclical within the UK economy, but to suggest that anyone who doesn't support UKIP hasn't got an approach to dealing with them is patently absurd.If you are happy with the way the UK operates now, then start to defend the various deficiencies that are the reason d'être of UKIP supporters.
Then we can have a debate.
Here are some numbers:
1. Amount per person per day that the UK Government is spending: £30.00
2. Amount per person per day that the interest payments on the deficit is costing: £2.00
3. Amount per person per day that membership of the EU costs: £0.30
Cutting public spending and reducing the deficit are important and should be the focus of our activity. Taking an enormous risk on leaving the EU for the sake of saving a few quid is not.
Greg66 said:
You have nothing to say about the poster itself. Wise. Don't try to defend the indefensible.
Oh, cant we say:It is correct that the UK’s EU membership allows other EU nationals (and those in the EEA countries of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) to look for work in this country, as well as allowing Brits to take jobs in Europe.
According to the EU’s official statisticians, there were 26.4 million people who were unemployed across the 28 nations of the EU in 2013. Of these, 2.4 million were located in Britain.
what exactly is indefensible?
I struggle to see how allowing unrestricted access to low skill / low wage immigration is going to help reduce the amount the state spends per person if those jobs are well below the level required to become a net contributor to the state's coffers.
Is it coincidence that after falling for nearly a decade, youth unemployment heads upwards at the same time as we opened our doors to the A8 countries? And this despite ever increasing record numbers of people going to university.
With the record percentage of A grade GCSEs and A-levels being handed out you'd have thought that our school leavers would be far better placed than their predecessors to take up skilled employment.
And how do EU employment regulations such as the much criticised Agency Workers Directive help?
So we're importing people for jobs that are paying well below the net contribution threshold, and increasing the amount of youth unemployment at the same time so increasing the amount that has to be paid out in unemployment benefits. A double hit, surely?
Telegraph said:
The point at which a household switches from being an overall “taker” to a “giver” is where disposable income, after all taxes and benefits are taken into account, passes a threshold of about £27,000, Smith & Williamson found. This would be where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000.
How much we give the state in tax – and how much we get backIs it coincidence that after falling for nearly a decade, youth unemployment heads upwards at the same time as we opened our doors to the A8 countries? And this despite ever increasing record numbers of people going to university.
With the record percentage of A grade GCSEs and A-levels being handed out you'd have thought that our school leavers would be far better placed than their predecessors to take up skilled employment.
And how do EU employment regulations such as the much criticised Agency Workers Directive help?
So we're importing people for jobs that are paying well below the net contribution threshold, and increasing the amount of youth unemployment at the same time so increasing the amount that has to be paid out in unemployment benefits. A double hit, surely?
jagnet said:
How much we give the state in tax – and how much we get back
Is it coincidence that after falling for nearly a decade, youth unemployment heads upwards at the same time as we opened our doors to the A8 countries? And this despite ever increasing record numbers of people going to university.
With the record percentage of A grade GCSEs and A-levels being handed out you'd have thought that our school leavers would be far better placed than their predecessors to take up skilled employment.
And how do EU employment regulations such as the much criticised Agency Workers Directive help?
So we're importing people for jobs that are paying well below the net contribution threshold, and increasing the amount of youth unemployment at the same time so increasing the amount that has to be paid out in unemployment benefits. A double hit, surely?
Clearly we are paying too much in working-age benefits. It's acting to deter our young people from seeking work. Is it coincidence that after falling for nearly a decade, youth unemployment heads upwards at the same time as we opened our doors to the A8 countries? And this despite ever increasing record numbers of people going to university.
With the record percentage of A grade GCSEs and A-levels being handed out you'd have thought that our school leavers would be far better placed than their predecessors to take up skilled employment.
And how do EU employment regulations such as the much criticised Agency Workers Directive help?
So we're importing people for jobs that are paying well below the net contribution threshold, and increasing the amount of youth unemployment at the same time so increasing the amount that has to be paid out in unemployment benefits. A double hit, surely?
NicD said:
Greg66 said:
You have nothing to say about the poster itself. Wise. Don't try to defend the indefensible.
Oh, cant we say:It is correct that the UK’s EU membership allows other EU nationals (and those in the EEA countries of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) to look for work in this country, as well as allowing Brits to take jobs in Europe.
According to the EU’s official statisticians, there were 26.4 million people who were unemployed across the 28 nations of the EU in 2013. Of these, 2.4 million were located in Britain.
what exactly is indefensible?
I don't think UKIP would be very interested in your copy for a new poster.
NicD said:
Greg66 said:
You have nothing to say about the poster itself. Wise. Don't try to defend the indefensible.
Oh, cant we say:It is correct that the UK’s EU membership allows other EU nationals (and those in the EEA countries of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) to look for work in this country, as well as allowing Brits to take jobs in Europe.
According to the EU’s official statisticians, there were 26.4 million people who were unemployed across the 28 nations of the EU in 2013. Of these, 2.4 million were located in Britain.
what exactly is indefensible?
Gaspode said:
jagnet said:
How much we give the state in tax – and how much we get back
Is it coincidence that after falling for nearly a decade, youth unemployment heads upwards at the same time as we opened our doors to the A8 countries? And this despite ever increasing record numbers of people going to university.
With the record percentage of A grade GCSEs and A-levels being handed out you'd have thought that our school leavers would be far better placed than their predecessors to take up skilled employment.
And how do EU employment regulations such as the much criticised Agency Workers Directive help?
So we're importing people for jobs that are paying well below the net contribution threshold, and increasing the amount of youth unemployment at the same time so increasing the amount that has to be paid out in unemployment benefits. A double hit, surely?
Clearly we are paying too much in working-age benefits. It's acting to deter our young people from seeking work. Is it coincidence that after falling for nearly a decade, youth unemployment heads upwards at the same time as we opened our doors to the A8 countries? And this despite ever increasing record numbers of people going to university.
With the record percentage of A grade GCSEs and A-levels being handed out you'd have thought that our school leavers would be far better placed than their predecessors to take up skilled employment.
And how do EU employment regulations such as the much criticised Agency Workers Directive help?
So we're importing people for jobs that are paying well below the net contribution threshold, and increasing the amount of youth unemployment at the same time so increasing the amount that has to be paid out in unemployment benefits. A double hit, surely?
You don't have a clue.One example: It costs the NHS 70k to train a brit nurse to fully qualified, for the same money they can pickup 3 foreign nurses- so guess what? 4 out of 5 new nurses are now foreign.
EU law does not even allow us to even test if they can speak English properly.
Gaspode said:
This is a bold and frankly astonishing claim. Are you saying that somehow the EU forced the private oil companies who were extracting North Sea oil to sell their oil direct to EU members rather than trading it on the international oil markets?
How on earth did they do this, and how did we not find out about it? I'd love to see your evidence for this.
Don't encourage him. Just ignore the loon.How on earth did they do this, and how did we not find out about it? I'd love to see your evidence for this.
Yazar said:
EU law does not even allow us to even test if they can speak English properly.
More complete b
ks from the anti-EU camp. The only thing that EU law prevents is indiscriminate blanket testing. The requirement is that language testing should be done on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that the skills are necessary for the performance of the job. See http://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/recruit...So a simple assessment at interview stage is all that is required - and of course the application form could easily form an initial assessment of the applicant's written language skills.
Edited by Gaspode on Thursday 18th December 11:12
Gaspode said:
Yazar said:
EU law does not even allow us to even test if they can speak English properly.
More complete bks from the anti-EU camp. The only thing that EU law prevents is indiscriminate blanket testing. The requirement is that language testing should be done on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that the skills are necessary for the performance of the job. See http://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/recruit...ks from the pro-eu camp'From your link:
thanks for the link to prove you are wrong said:
"Specific changes to language controls mean that in the future, language competence will be checked by regulators for European health professionals seeking professional registration in the UK. It is anticipated that the new European law will come into effect towards the end of 2015"
So 'common sense' once again had to be fought for in the EU, and it is merely 'anticipated' at this time that the changes will happen. You would think something like this could be decided in a day wouldn't you?NicD said:
As for the City, well, a dependence on the financial sector is not advisable in the long term.
Why not? (not that the country depends on the City anyway; it is an important, irreplaceable component of GDP, but much smaller than manufacturing (that Maggie supposedly killed off)).Some gems from your link:
Spend 1 month of your 3 year degree in the UK? Welcome to the NHS.
Worked in an english speaking country but didn't actually speak English? meh, who cares.
Gaspode article fudges said:
3. What evidence other than UK language tests may be acceptable?
- pursued part of their education in the UK
- lived in a multi-lingual household in which a relative or carer used English as their primary form of communication.
- worked in an English speaking country or in an organisation or institution in which communications were in English
So if you live in a multi-lingual household, but actually speak poor english- hey thats ok. - pursued part of their education in the UK
- lived in a multi-lingual household in which a relative or carer used English as their primary form of communication.
- worked in an English speaking country or in an organisation or institution in which communications were in English
Spend 1 month of your 3 year degree in the UK? Welcome to the NHS.
Worked in an english speaking country but didn't actually speak English? meh, who cares.
Yazar said:
Some gems from your link:
Spend 1 month of your 3 year degree in the UK? Welcome to the NHS.
Worked in an english speaking country but didn't actually speak English? meh, who cares.
Yazar, why do insist on advertising your stupidity. The key word is 'may'. I know of two Portuguese mental health nurses who didn't pass required language test and are not allowed to work in NHS. Gaspode article fudges said:
3. What evidence other than UK language tests may be acceptable?
- pursued part of their education in the UK
- lived in a multi-lingual household in which a relative or carer used English as their primary form of communication.
- worked in an English speaking country or in an organisation or institution in which communications were in English
So if you live in a multi-lingual household, but actually speak poor english- hey thats ok.- pursued part of their education in the UK
- lived in a multi-lingual household in which a relative or carer used English as their primary form of communication.
- worked in an English speaking country or in an organisation or institution in which communications were in English
Spend 1 month of your 3 year degree in the UK? Welcome to the NHS.
Worked in an english speaking country but didn't actually speak English? meh, who cares.
Instead of posting idiotic things you might want to brush up on simple maths, y'know like 24mil / 10000 = x ? (hint; x is not 2.4 mil).
Dumbass.
Yazar said:
So if you live in a multi-lingual household, but actually speak poor english- hey thats ok.
Spend 1 month of your 3 year degree in the UK? Welcome to the NHS.
Worked in an english speaking country but didn't actually speak English? meh, who cares.
Are you asserting that the NHS recruits staff without interviewing them first and assessing their capability to do the job for which they are applying?Spend 1 month of your 3 year degree in the UK? Welcome to the NHS.
Worked in an english speaking country but didn't actually speak English? meh, who cares.
(hint: My sister just retired after 30 years working for the NHS in administration.)
Guam said:
I have absolutely no doubt that Cameron knew this would happen, that's why he pretends to talk tough on the EU, he knows that what he says and 'guarantee's' will always be stymied by the EU, which he has no intention of getting out of (plus I'm sure there'll be a nice EU non-job for him and his cronies in the year's to come..)Gaspode said:
Yazar said:
So if you live in a multi-lingual household, but actually speak poor english- hey thats ok.
Spend 1 month of your 3 year degree in the UK? Welcome to the NHS.
Worked in an english speaking country but didn't actually speak English? meh, who cares.
Are you asserting that the NHS recruits staff without interviewing them first and assessing their capability to do the job for which they are applying?Spend 1 month of your 3 year degree in the UK? Welcome to the NHS.
Worked in an english speaking country but didn't actually speak English? meh, who cares.
(hint: My sister just retired after 30 years working for the NHS in administration.)
You are wasting your breath. The guy obviously doesn't have a clue about education. Or NHS. Or anything for that matter. His 'opinions' are copy of breibart's 'how to argue against eu in 10 easy lessons'.
Secondary character from random Kafka's novel. Only good to take potshots at.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff