[QUOTE="Speed_Triple, post: As I said, never assume anything.[/QUOTE] There you've said it yourself " never assume anything" yet you seem to assume the majority of trades people and self employed don't pay their dues! And you also seem to assume all journo's are whiter than white and declare all there income to hmrc! Infact I know of many people who are in paye jobs who earn additional income on the side which they don't even think of declaring as they don't do tax returns anyway. There are plenty of other assumptions you've made but I can't be bothered to bring every one up. On topic my views are £67k is slightly on the low side for an mp and very low for a cabinet minister. I also don't see the problem in them having other employment as an mp so long as there is no abuse of power or conflict of interest. Same applies outside government whereby directors of companies can hold positions in various companies for example.
Tax avoidance is not illegal, though the media and politicians have latched on to it and used the morality question to whip up negative comment. Well you know what? It ain't illegal and never was. Any accountant of mine that suggests I should pay more tax than legally required would be looking for another client very quickly. Should I choose to pay more tax voluntarily that's a different matter. Paye - legal theft.
If the basic MP role consumed 100% of everyone's time, it would be impossible to form a government, since no MP would have any time for taking on ministerial duties. It would be impossible to run political parties, since no MP would have time to take on party functions. It would be impossible for any MP to keep a professional career going, or write books, etc etc. A back bench MP who does not have (or no longer has) any other role may well have extra capacity. They had better have, or the system would grind to a halt!
I don't think I said either that most tradespeople are self employed or that most of them don't pay their dues. I believe I said SOME don't pay their dues and that I never attempted to quantify the numbers of self-employed tradespeople vis à vis employed ones. I've spotted where the misunderstanding may have occurred and made you think I was saying that ALL tradespeople fiddled their taxes and corrected it. Sorry.
I always thought that it was taken as read that ministers don't spend as much time on constituency work as they should, but that it was a trade-off for the constituents as being a minister gets their concerns higher up the pecking order. If your MP is the Prime Minister, that should be good for you: at least if you can get a concern to them, they have the influence to do something about it. Running the party should be a job for non-ministers. I don't think that an MP should "keep a professional career going". They have decided to become MPs - that's their new job. Don't like the inherent job security (although, these days in the private sector, what's job security??)? Don't volunteer to be an MP. It's quite amusing, seeing as the government is so much in favour of "zero hours contracts". Hey! Have your own taste of job instability! If you want to write a book, you do it in your own time. It's mainly for your benefit in any case. There have been decades I'd have wanted to write a book, but when my every waking hour and all my creativity was being taken up marketing stuff for my employer, there just wasn't the time or the energy.
There seems to be a sharp divide in opinion between those who think it is desirable for MPs to have lives and careers outside politics, and those who think MPs should be exclusively focussed on politics. In parliament this week, the Conservatives took the former view, and Labour the latter view.
When I was marketing whisky, I was solely focused on marketing whisky. When I was running a dozen Mac shops, I was solely focused on their running. I didn't have time for anything else. As I have already said, people with experience of other professions are a good idea in politics. It's just a bad idea if that experience is simultaneous, in my view.
This thread went a bit off topic. Surely the story was about inappropriate additional work. Offering to use their MPs' influence to help commercial interests obtain an advantage? No one minds MPs doing a bit of work that's relevant to their roles as politicians.
And you also seem to assume all journo's are whiter than white and declare all there income to hmrc! Infact I know of many people who are in paye jobs who earn additional income on the side which they don't even think of declaring as they don't do tax returns anyway. [/QUOTE] Not sure why you think I believe all journalists are whiter than white. Many would probably under declare their incomes if they could. But I can't imagine their employers slipping them a bundle of fifties under the desk can you? I can only speak for myself. I have never earned a penny in cash and always declare every single penny I am paid by cheque or BACS on my tax return because I was brought up to believe that stealing from my fellow citizens was wrong. Simple. But please feel free to disagree with that sentiment.
Not sure why you think I believe all journalists are whiter than white. Many would probably under declare their incomes if they could. But I can't imagine their employers slipping them a bundle of fifties under the desk can you? I can only speak for myself. I have never earned a penny in cash and always declare every single penny I am paid by cheque or BACS on my tax return because I was brought up to believe that stealing from my fellow citizens was wrong. Simple. But please feel free to disagree with that sentiment.[/QUOTE] I have not noticed any dissenting voices so am glad to see that we are all on the same page on the issue.
I have not noticed any dissenting voices so am glad to see that we are all on the same page on the issue. [/QUOTE] what money do the use for their informants? just interested.
what money do the use for their informants? just interested.[/QUOTE] You'll need to rephrase that question if you want me to understand it, Fin. Sorry not on your wavelength today.
what money does the news paper use to pay their informants? is it accountable? is money payed? does the local grass give receipts?
OK earn is a strong word........and the 67K is that it or what is the real actual amount taken each month? is that written anywhere even an average.......
To my knowledge I have never worked as a reporter for a newspaper that paid for information, Fin. I certainly was never involved in such a thing. I might have bought a few people drinks on expenses while chatting to them or formally interviewing them but there was never any expectation that information would be supplied in return. I would guess, therefore, newspapers that do pay for stories so via their reporters' expenses. So it would be cash in a brown envelope. And you can bet some of those who have benefited from such payments have been policemen. I suspect, however, that I have worked as a sub editor for publications that pay directly for stories. But as I have said I have been too far down the food chain to be trusted with details of how the stories have been come by and have just been responsible for cutting and crafting the reporter's words and writing the headlines. It is important to note, however, that it is not the responsibility of anyone who pays someone else for work in cash to ensure that the person or business being paid declares the income. That, at the moment, is solely the beneficiary's duty. Some time ago I believe a prominent Labour politician did suggest that the middle classes should be held responsible for their gardeners and cleaners etc's failure to declare cash they paid them. This was roundly mocked at the time and was not taken any further because it would be impossible to police, I think. Hope that helps
how many self employed find it convenient to show "no profit" at the end of each year..........if its possible to be able to audit trail the comings and goings.......
I agree. But I think what is being said is that those lucky enough to make more money in a day than most of their fans earn in a month by, for example, telling jokes, strumming a guitar or kicking a ball of wind round a field for fun, ought perhaps to thank their lucky stars and feel they can afford to obey the spirit of taxation laws as well as the letter. Though it would be wrong to accuse them of breaking the law - because they are not - I don't think it is wrong to point out they are ignoring the spirit of the law, so that people can make their choices about how to spend their own taxed income. It may even be that because they hand responsibility for their financial affairs to accountants etc, they are not even aware that improper schemes have been used on their behalf, in which case it is good that it is brought to their attention. It's the same for businesses such as Starbucks and Amazon that admit they avoid paying corporation tax on technicalities and defend themselves by saying that they "provide a lot of employment and their employees pay a lot of income tax" - as if they are philanthropists doing us a favour! I for one, as a result of this information, do not spend money with either business, as is my right. Sometimes consumer power is the most efficient way to get a business to become more socially aware. And it's no use just a few consumers voting with their wallets, so it's best that the media cover their actions to "whip up" as you say, negative comment. They would not be doing their job if they did not. As a student I attended the Boycott Barclays demonstrations that were instrumental in persuading the bank to disinvest from South Africa, thus helping to advance the demise of the country's apartheid regime. Do you not think that media coverage of such events did not have a huge role in bringing to an end this most heinous of regimes?
it's not really a convenient s to show no profit, some times theres no way around it, but as a sole trader if i show no profit i will deffo have the tax/vat man round.
