In article ,
Huge wrote:
He is, of course, making the standard politicians error of assuming that
everyone will obey the law. What actually happens is that the worst
offenders ignore the new laws in the same way they ignored the old
ones and the benefit obtained is *much* smaller than that predicted.

It's the same with those that call for stiffer penalties for whatever.
Unless there is a fair chance of being caught after breaking the law, the
penalty acts as no deterrent whatsoever to the criminal. And the more new
laws that are passed, the less chance there is of the existing ones being
enforced.

I wonder if the introduction of speed cameras has caused the increase in
drunk driving? At one time, stopping a driver for speeding gave the police
a cause to breathalyse them.

I also wonder what all those police released from traffic duties now do -
you certainly don't see them on other patrols.

--
*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 14:56:30 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Orange wrote:
No Dave, my rage has got absolutely nothing to do with the way I conduct
myself towards my family, along with millions of others it's directed
against this government, who on an almost daily basis appear to have an
agenda of introducing rules and regulations affecting ordinary decent
law-abiding people, most of whom are pefectly content to be left alone to
get on with their lives.

Suppose a neighbour decides on some DIY gas work,

That's already controlled under the CORGI scheme. Which at the moment
is sensible (ish). With regulations like this wisdom lies in knowing
where to stop.

and hasn't a clue about how to do it correctly. And blows up your house.

That's just one of the reasons why I will only live in a detached
house. I like a layer of insulation (free space) between myself and my
neighbours and then I don't have to overly concern myself in what they
are doing. AAMOF I don't know what they're doing ATM, any of them :-)

Or doesn't follow plumbing regs and poisons your water.

It's almost inconceivable that he would unintentionally contaminate
the public water supply. Lead piping issues aside (but I don't know
of any of those either), I have no recollection of any instances of
anyone being poisoned by a neighbours work on his domestic water
installation. Installations in decrepit council owned properties, un
modernised Victorian Schools and crumbling council houses, are far
more likely to be insanitary, near certainly, in fact.

Or takes a load bearing wall down which effects the integrity of your structure?


Can't happen, see above.

Or perhaps likes noisy parties every night?

Some of them do have quite big parties, they don't bother me, see
above, but if they did there are provisions to cater for that once the
issue has arisen. What you don't have to do is go down the council and
get a licence every time you have a party (However AIUI parties of
carol singers now need a licence from the council BTW). They are,
however proposing you notify the council every time you repair a
broken window, or move a light switch, or replace a central heating
boiler, insisting that only approved boilers are used as replacements
presumably in the face of all other constraints, size, pipery uppery
complications etc. Can't just get another one the same to fit the gap
in the kitchen units pipes etc. We can't have that now can we?

As it is, when we built an extension I had to go through a Kafka
-esque performance of trogging down the council offices with "A Brick"
and "A Roof Tile" to demonstrate the materials were "suitable", (Hey
what would be the future of a company making "unsuitable" bricks or
roof tiles?) despite the fact that the "Building Controls Officer" I
saw had not the slightest idea what materials were used in the
original house. The point being that as property owner, it was in my
own interest more than anybody else to use "suitable" materials.

Or wants to run a brothel?

As if the council protected the environment and amenity of people
already living in driech tower blocks and council estates when they
populated them with prostitutes and junkies decanted from problem
estates. Remember also it was a *Council* that *built* the piggeries:

See: http://snurl.com/2kf1

Anyway, commercial use would need planning permission, a Brothel run
by an owner-occupier as a "sideline" in an ordinary house (which is
all there are round here) would be unlikely to generate enough traffic
to bother me (she'd get sore!). It is interesting to reflect that
there's talk about of having continental style red light districts in
British towns, and if that were to happen and the council decided you
were going to get a Brothel next door, you'd get a Brothel next door.

Happy?

The possibility of corruption in public officialdom concerns me most.
They will chose where, when, if and how the regulations are enforced.
This is an issue that I *have* encountered (costing my company nearly
£1m profit since 1989 because they insisted we provide proof of
compliance with European standards {type testing} thereby increasing
our costs by 19%. they did not impose this on our competitors for some
reason, and then when they had a big requirement, selected against our
products because the untested products from our competitors were
cheaper), rather than one of the neighbours supplementing her income
on the side, or replacing a broken window with unapproved glass,
putting a light in the cupboard under the stairs, or FTM singing
Christmas Carols in public without a licence, which I have not. :-(

YMMV.


All these with in the confines of his own house, and perfectly ok in your
ideal world where the state leaves everyone to do their own thing
regardless.

I get to work with a lot of visiting service engineers. One from
America couldn't understand why our mixer taps didn't mix but had two
seperate nozzles, scalding himself under the 100% hot outflow with the
mixer tap set to warm (half way). I explained it was important that
hot water potentially from a contaminated roof tank shouldn't get into
the cold rising main but he said how could it, the cold feed must be
under higher pressure to reach the tank (I had no answer) and anyway
what the hell are you doing having contaminated hot water piped to the
kitchen sink? One from Holland complained that the drinking water in
his Birmingham hotel room must be of very low quality because it was
*very* heavily Chlorinated and irritated his eyes, One from Belgium
couldn't believe the performance we made of getting planning
permission & building consent to build a house, It's your land, it's
your money, it's your house, if it fell down it's your problem. What's
it to do with anyone else? I told him it's to protect the environment,
and the house would remain after he had been and gone affecting the
local environment, he was unimpressed. I must admit the quality of
housing and visual amenity in Belgium would at the very least seem not
to be any worse than even the better parts of Birmingham, :-) and nor
for that matter does the incidence of water borne diseases in Boston
MA or Utrecht NL seem to be significantly worse than Birmingham UK.

So there must be another reason, it must be summat else mustn't it?

DG

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 15:24:10 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

It's the same with those that call for stiffer penalties for whatever.
Unless there is a fair chance of being caught after breaking the law, the
penalty acts as no deterrent whatsoever to the criminal. And the more new
laws that are passed, the less chance there is of the existing ones being
enforced.

One thing that I am sure will result from this stupid legislation is
that people who were previously inclined to obey the law may in future
decide that lawbreaking is worth the risk. So as a result the number
of "crimes" will rise.

Sir John Harvey Jones, ex-ICI chairman, made a statement some time ago
that very often when a new law is introduced to combat a specific
problem area the end result is the exact opposite of what was
intended. I think these new electrical regulations may well have that
effect.

PoP

derek wrote:

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 14:56:30 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

Suppose a neighbour decides on some DIY gas work,

That's already controlled under the CORGI scheme.

No, the GSI&U regulations do not forbid DIY gas work and do not
make use of CORGI registered operatives mandatory unless the house
is being rented or the operative is paid.

Which at the moment
is sensible (ish).

Agreed (with the emphasis on "ish"!).

Or doesn't follow plumbing regs and poisons your water.

I think poisoning the water will be an amazingly unusual result
of DIY gas work while not following plumbing regs.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:04:15 +0100, PoP
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 15:24:10 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

It's the same with those that call for stiffer penalties for whatever.
Unless there is a fair chance of being caught after breaking the law, the
penalty acts as no deterrent whatsoever to the criminal. And the more new
laws that are passed, the less chance there is of the existing ones being
enforced.

One thing that I am sure will result from this stupid legislation is
that people who were previously inclined to obey the law may in future
decide that lawbreaking is worth the risk. So as a result the number
of "crimes" will rise.

Sir John Harvey Jones, ex-ICI chairman, made a statement some time ago
that very often when a new law is introduced to combat a specific
problem area the end result is the exact opposite of what was
intended. I think these new electrical regulations may well have that
effect.


I agree.

There is also a perception aspect.

Think about gas fitting as a comparison. I bet that if I asked
people in the plumbing section of B&Q Warehouse whether they had done
or would consider installing a gas appliance, the vast majority would
say no. Let's assume that people would answer honestly because the
question is non-attributable - artificial I know, but needed to make
the point.

B&Q does stock most of the materials needed for installing gas
appliances:-

- copper pipe and fittings which are generic
- selection of black iron fittings
- cooker bayonet outlets and hoses
- isolating valves
- soft copper kits to connect fires
- thick PTFE tape
- manometers
- smoke matches

You have to look for these things but they are there.

I suspect that for most people there is a perception that gas is
inherently dangerous and is the preserve of the professional.

Now consider electrical work.

In the same branch of B&Q, you will find a very comprehensive
selection of electrical goods ranging from consumer units to light
fititngs and conduit to earth rods - in fact almost as much as an
electrical wholesaler; albeit rather more expensive. There is
normally at least a full aisle of the stuff.

This stuff must move, because retailers measure shelf space in revenue
per square metre per annum.

So essentially people are used to doing electrical work on their
property and do not perceive this as being unsafe.

Do I think that B&Q will withdraw electrical goods that will
implicitly require NICEIC member installation or a visit from the
building inspector? No.

Do I think that they will put up warning notices and give leaflets to
every customer? Possibly.

I bet that if I were to ask the average punter whether he will take
notice of the new regulations, the answer will be no because he has
always done his own electrical work.







..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote
| There is also a perception aspect.
| Think about gas fitting as a comparison. I bet that if I asked
| people in the plumbing section of B&Q Warehouse whether they had done
| or would consider installing a gas appliance, the vast majority would
| say no. Let's assume that people would answer honestly because the
| question is non-attributable - artificial I know, but needed to make
| the point.
| B&Q does stock most of the materials needed for installing gas
| appliances:-
[snip list]

including gas fires and boilers themselves

| I suspect that for most people there is a perception that gas is
| inherently dangerous and is the preserve of the professional.
| Now consider electrical work. ...
| So essentially people are used to doing electrical work on their
| property and do not perceive this as being unsafe....
| I bet that if I were to ask the average punter whether he will take
| notice of the new regulations, the answer will be no because he has
| always done his own electrical work.

Also, even if gasfitting *was* Corgi only, it wouldn't have that big an
effect. Most households only have a boiler, cooker, lounge fire, and these
aren't moved or changed very often.

However there are many more electrical appliances and sockets and people do
move these around, change fittings, want to add a spur, etc. In many cases a
reasonable diy job is safer than a temporary lash-up with flexes round the
skirting etc. And the new regs won't stop those people who extend table lamp
flexes with terminal strip or public information film plug in their drill
with matchsticks instead of a proper plug /, etc.

Provided someone uses the proper accessories and follows the Readers Digest
pictures carefully, it's difficult to do a really dangerous job. Unlike gas,
which leaks out slowly and then goes Bang! modern electrical systems are
pretty well protected with MCBs and RCDs that they are generally fail-safe.

Owain

Steve wrote:
PoP wrote:

The bit I do not like about these new regulations (and which I
continue to badger government about) is the notion that you have to be
NICEIC registered in order to prove you can write certificates. I'm
going to college in the new year to do the C&G2391 course which will
provide me with the knowledge to perform the tests. From that (and
using the approved test equipment) I could most likely write valid
certificates. But those certificates would be meaningless unless I
were an NICEIC member.

I'm just spoiling for a fight, since I am a chartered electrical
engineer, and a member of the bloody IEE. Am I competent ?

Me too, C. Eng and Eur. Ing, with the basic underlying qualification
being a degree in Electrical Engineering.

Since it's 'us' (in the generic sense) that write the regulations
surely we are somehow qualified to say that they have been complied
with.

--
Chris Green )

Andy Hall wrote:

And what about a situation where some work was carried out and not
certified, and someone else comes along and bodges a change from which
loss results? If the initial changes weren't certified then the
practitioner may well find himself facing a charge due to someone
elses poor work. Again, could happen now.

The new regulations do allow limited work to be done without
certification (minor works). This is where the argument on the
government's part falls down even further. If a minor work such as
an addition to a circuit is done incompetently and causes a fire or
other problem, then what happens? It didn't require notification.
Apart from the statistical factor of the amount of wiring, wiring
accessories and so on required for a full house rewire being Nx
greater than that for a minor work, there is no real basis to say that
somebody who can do a minor work competently can't do a full rewire or
vice versa.

Surely also there is the question of how one tells what changes have
been done since a certicficate was issued (or not). A certificate
doesn't describe the installed wiring in any detail as far as I know
so it's quite impossible to decide whether it applies to what's
actually installed.

--
Chris Green )

PoP wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 13:08:43 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I think that this would be a minor work, but I take your point.

It may not be. I did a job recently for a householder where a bulb was
smashed in the kitchen light fitting, leaving the wire element of the
bulb poking out at a dangerous angle - it was one of these shrouded
light fittings with 3 bulbs and lampholders. The only reasonable way
of fixing this was to take the light fitting off the ceiling and
dismantle it, re-assemble, then put it back.

Being in the kitchen (or bathroom) and having physically disturbed the
installation means that this work would be covered by the new regs,
and I would expect to be charging in the region of 20-30 pounds for
that job (from memory I think I actually charged 10 pounds because I
was working on some other minor jobs around the house).

In this sort of situation I really don't see how anyone will ever know
that a certificate should have been issued, and thus in most cases it
won't be.

--
Chris Green )

On 6 Oct 2003 08:14:25 GMT, wrote:

In this sort of situation I really don't see how anyone will ever know
that a certificate should have been issued, and thus in most cases it
won't be.

In the event that the householder suffered casualty or death some time
after the work was carried out then there may be a paper trail of an
invoice and/or sales receipt generated from the work undertaken. That
will lead Plod to your front door sooner than sharpish.

One assumes that the householder might be found smouldering on the
floor (when the ceiling fixture has been touched) by a family member.
That family member might well remember "oh yes, he/she had that
fitting looked at by someone last year". And in the particular case
that I refer to I was doing the job on behalf of a landlord - the
landlord is definitely going to remember they paid to have the light
fitting sorted, otherwise the landlord would become liable (probably).

I don't think it is safe to assume that non-compliance won't be
traceable.

What it is bound to do however is to increase the black market
racketeering, and dear old Gordon Brown is most likely going to see
less tax dollars, not more, as electrical practitioners trouser the
cash rather than get the electrics tested. That will become even more
likely because if the householder phones an electrician who says
"that'll be 150 quid with the test certificate", and phones another
who says "50 quid in readies without test certificate", guess which
one the householder is going to go for?

That first sparky might have done the job originally for say 70 quid,
not a huge increase on the 50 quid and the householder might not feel
inclined to get a 2nd quote. Gordon would have got his tax on the 70
quid being properly declared - instead he gets SFA because the money
goes into the black economy.

PoP

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 12:54:05 +0100, "Frank X"
wrote:



I don't personally know the detail of how the individual taxes are
applied, where the limits are but at the very least there's excise
duty on road fuels, vehicle excise duty, "new car tax",and council
tax, as well as all the "nickle and dime" permits, licences, stamp
duties, and charges (OPRA etc).
to go towards the 80%.

fuel duty I'll give you, but we are not talking serious money. A higher rate
tax payer can probably take all this over stuff into account and offset it
against lower tax bands and allowances and still come out with an overall
tax rate less than the marginal rate of 55.5%.

Don't get me wrong, only getting to keep 44.5% of the money you earn is a
disgrace but don't overplay your hand.


Just had my old P60's out to check.

It seems overall I am probably paying 51% of my takings to the
government. My marginal rate could be around 55% or so. Company car
benefit (which is tax & NI on money I haven't had) at the new rates
would be the equivalent of about another 5%.

Intuitively, being taxed at 17.5% vat + 40% +11% +11% + sundries one
would expect to pay more than 55%. I suppose the error lies in the
fact that once money has gone to the gov. in tax it doesn't attract
tax at the other levels, not yet anyway, something to be thankful for!

DG

In article , Derek
wrote:
Company car benefit (which is tax & NI on money I haven't
had) at the new rates would be the equivalent of about another
5%.

For which you've got the car. For me the change in CC tax rules
was an absolute winner. My new Honda Jazz cost me (technically
my company of course) £11,200, 25% of this (reducing) each year
set against corporation tax, along with road tax, insurance and
servicing. I pay 15% x £11.2K x 40% in tax = £13p.w. for the
benefit of having a brand new car, all expenses paid except
petrol. If the company decided to allocate £3,000 to me instead
of to car expenses I'd end up with £25p.w. net + £13 less tax =
£38p.w. to run a car - finance, depreciation, servicing, tax and
insurance. Actual costs as before say £60. So having the company
car is equivalent (in my case) to several percent off tax not
on.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

Dave Plowman wrote:

My neighbour, a widow, was told most emphatically by the chap that
services her water heater - I assume CORGI registered - that her electric
cooker could only be replaced by a registered tradesman. This *might* be
the case with a gas one, so he simply transferred this rule to include all
cookers. And she believes him rather than me. ;-)


Mr Chairman (Dave): Point of clarification please. Meaning?

"Snip ...... the chap that services her (GAS?) water heater
....... snip .....
that her electric cooker could only be replaced (BY A GAS
COOKER?) by a registered tradesperson".

Or am I missing the point? Slightly!

Sounds like the usual business of a) Don't believe everything
(much) of what you are told and b) Any buyer or potential buyers
responsibility to find out to a sufficient degree what they are
agreeing to/contracting for; caveat emptor.

Regards. Terry.

PS. Love those bottom 'one liners' on your posts.

PoP wrote:
On 6 Oct 2003 08:14:25 GMT, wrote:

In this sort of situation I really don't see how anyone will ever know
that a certificate should have been issued, and thus in most cases it
won't be.

In the event that the householder suffered casualty or death some time
after the work was carried out then there may be a paper trail of an
invoice and/or sales receipt generated from the work undertaken. That
will lead Plod to your front door sooner than sharpish.

One assumes that the householder might be found smouldering on the
floor (when the ceiling fixture has been touched) by a family member.
That family member might well remember "oh yes, he/she had that
fitting looked at by someone last year". And in the particular case
that I refer to I was doing the job on behalf of a landlord - the
landlord is definitely going to remember they paid to have the light
fitting sorted, otherwise the landlord would become liable (probably).

I don't think it is safe to assume that non-compliance won't be
traceable.

I was thinking much more of the D-I-Y case where the householder has
removed and replaced the kitchen light him/herself. Obviously if the
work has been paid for then there is, as you say, a paper trail to
follow.

I have, over the years, rewired large parts of our house. How could
anyone possibly decide which bits I have done and which I haven't?
(Except, hopefully, that my bits look better than the original)

--
Chris Green )

In article ,
derek wrote:
It seems overall I am probably paying 51% of my takings to the
government. My marginal rate could be around 55% or so. Company car
benefit (which is tax & NI on money I haven't had) at the new rates
would be the equivalent of about another 5%.

I've never quite understood this. Presumably if you pay company car
benefit, you don't need a car of your own? Unless, of course, you wouldn't
normally have a car - or would run an old banger doing all the repairs etc
yourself.

--
*Welcome to **** Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
For which you've got the car. For me the change in CC tax rules
was an absolute winner. My new Honda Jazz cost me (technically
my company of course) £11,200, 25% of this (reducing) each year
set against corporation tax, along with road tax, insurance and
servicing. I pay 15% x £11.2K x 40% in tax = £13p.w. for the
benefit of having a brand new car, all expenses paid except
petrol. If the company decided to allocate £3,000 to me instead
of to car expenses I'd end up with £25p.w. net + £13 less tax =
£38p.w. to run a car - finance, depreciation, servicing, tax and
insurance. Actual costs as before say £60. So having the company
car is equivalent (in my case) to several percent off tax not
on.

Absolutely. I really don't think those who complain about being taxed on
a company car have ever worked out the costs of running their own - like
for like.

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:27:59 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Derek
wrote:
Company car benefit (which is tax & NI on money I haven't
had) at the new rates would be the equivalent of about another
5%.

For which you've got the car.

But I didn't want it. It's full of drawings, tools, test equipment and
spare parts. I use my wife's car at weekends and don't have to travel
to work.

In the first instance the IR reduced my allowances by £7.4k, this for
a 5 year old Fiat Ulysse (80k miles) worth about £4.75k ! I got it
reduced to £4.4k but that still seemed a raw deal.

For me the change in CC tax rules
was an absolute winner. My new Honda Jazz cost me (technically
my company of course) £11,200, 25% of this (reducing) each year
set against corporation tax, along with road tax, insurance and
servicing. I pay 15% x £11.2K x 40% in tax = £13p.w. for the
benefit of having a brand new car, all expenses paid except
petrol. If the company decided to allocate £3,000 to me instead
of to car expenses I'd end up with £25p.w. net + £13 less tax =
£38p.w. to run a car - finance, depreciation, servicing, tax and
insurance. Actual costs as before say £60. So having the company
car is equivalent (in my case) to several percent off tax not
on.

I now don't run a company car and claim the mileage allowance. I take
it you've investigated that option, it's attractive if you do a lot of
business miles in a car that's cheap to own/run.

DG

wrote in message
...
PoP wrote:
On 6 Oct 2003 08:14:25 GMT, wrote:

In this sort of situation I really don't see how anyone will ever know
that a certificate should have been issued, and thus in most cases it
won't be.

In the event that the householder suffered casualty or death some time
after the work was carried out then there may be a paper trail of an
invoice and/or sales receipt generated from the work undertaken. That
will lead Plod to your front door sooner than sharpish.

One assumes that the householder might be found smouldering on the
floor (when the ceiling fixture has been touched) by a family member.
That family member might well remember "oh yes, he/she had that
fitting looked at by someone last year". And in the particular case
that I refer to I was doing the job on behalf of a landlord - the
landlord is definitely going to remember they paid to have the light
fitting sorted, otherwise the landlord would become liable (probably).

I don't think it is safe to assume that non-compliance won't be
traceable.

I was thinking much more of the D-I-Y case where the householder has
removed and replaced the kitchen light him/herself. Obviously if the
work has been paid for then there is, as you say, a paper trail to
follow.

I have, over the years, rewired large parts of our house. How could
anyone possibly decide which bits I have done and which I haven't?
(Except, hopefully, that my bits look better than the original)

--
Chris Green )

Quite.

especially if you stock up on (soon to be non-compliant) black and red
cable.....

So, these regs will actually create an incentive for the DIYer not to comply
with regs.

Great.

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

Owain wrote:

"PoP" wrote
| Home office - the local government can charge you the uniform business
| rate for use of home or part thereof as business premises, because you
| fall into the business rate arrangement which shopkeepers and others
| have to dedicate some of their money to.

And once you are labelled for business rates many councils will then follow
up checking whether you have a waste disposal contract, either with them or
with a private contractor. Business rates don't include waste disposal.

Then the water people want to put you on a business water meter ...

Owain

For info: In Canada one can claim against income tax that
percentage of your home expenses that you can fairly attribute to
being self employed or operating a business (or part of it)
from/at home. But only if you first make a profit; that
percentage cannot create or increase a business loss. (I guess
the rationale is that you have to live somewhere and if you
decide to have a home office, a storeroom, meet clients, use the
phone and internet etc. at home to conduct business then you can
claim 'Reasonable' expenses against taxable income to the federal
and provincial governments for the part use of it.

When it comes to the the municipal classification of the property
and whether to charge business taxes it's not a problem AFIK
because the percentage of the home used is usually pretty small
e.g. typically 10 to 12 per cent, say, of the total floor area.
Also home based business facilities are generally used for a
very small percentage of time; typically less 20% of a 24 hour
day, depending on the type of business!

Also it would be pretty ridiculous if a visiting potential
customer to my home said "May I please use your bathroom" and
that caused me to be business taxed municipally for water. Just
about as ridiculous as giving that customer a cup of tea or
coffee (or even something stronger! Maybe some home made wine?)
and then claiming that my premises are now a restaurant/cafe
serving refreshments or are a wine making operation.
The type of "Business use of a percentage of the home" does
favour 'white collar' workers. What does get undesirable
attention is the family fixing up cars in the backyard or the
retiree refinishing furniture in their basement or garden shed
and making a bit of noise about it! And then there are the people
who have 'permanent' yard/boot/junk sales going on. Not 'every'
Saturday please!

BTW 'Splitting' one's income with a spouse or other member of the
family is a RECOMMENDED way of reducing income tax here. It is
even mentioned as a 'Tax Tip' in some CCRA (Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency) previously dubbed 'Revenue Canada', publications!

While one may feel that CCRA just try to give you the feeling
they are on your side CCRAs mandate or code clearly states,
"Taxpayers may arrange their affairs to minimize the tax paid".
Trouble with all this regulation is that one starts running your
business in a manner which has to take into account all the tax
rules and or other legislation. As an example; if I lease a
vehicle as opposed to buying and depreciating one against the
business which is the most favourable from a tax viewpoint? OR:
Shall I hire two casual employees daily for half a day each or
one person full time, which brings into play whether they are of
equal competence versus the work available, and 'I don't care if
they get enough hours to qualify for Unemployment Insurance at
end of the busy season'; or do I? If I employ my son/daughter
then ...... ?

And obviously one can't keep pigs in the back garden in a
residential area!

Since it is claimed that, in Canada, 80% of the jobs are provided
by "Small Business" the complexity of regulation is IMHO
disincentive to small business persons; even when they are
attempting to be legal and ethical.

As a personal opinion against 'excessive' taxation and regulation
(not zero taxation), probably all of it meant with good intent,
and as a footnote, see the uk.d-i-y and other 'handy persons'
news groups, I estimate that if one can do ones own
repair/construction/plumbing/electrical work oneself, even
using/buying all new materials at normal retail, that it can cost
40 to 50% less than contracting that work. The person/company
doing the work, say, being subject to taxes and regulations that
increase the difficulty of doing and consequently their costs
charged to you.

If one can recycle used materials, again using one's own labour
and time, it is even cheaper, estimated at 30% or even less. And,
in my opinion it's at the point where it has become in many cases
a complete disincentive. It's part of the attitude and a factor
where consumers will say "Aw to heck with it, chuck that in the
dumpster/bin and buy a new one!" (from China!). That buy new can
reduce the work available which in turn reduces local economic
activity.

However these days the UK seems to be a pretty prosperous place,
compared to 50 years ago? And consumers seem content to pay high
costs?

Anyway. I'm shortly retiring, at age 70; so forgive my rant!
Terry.

In article ,
Terry wrote:
Mr Chairman (Dave): Point of clarification please. Meaning?

"Snip ...... the chap that services her (GAS?) water heater ...... snip
..... that her electric cooker could only be replaced (BY A GAS COOKER?)
by a registered tradesperson".

Or am I missing the point? Slightly!

Electric for electric. The story would have no meaning if she wanted to
replace it with a gas one, as he would have been correct.

Sounds like the usual business of a) Don't believe everything
(much) of what you are told and b) Any buyer or potential buyers
responsibility to find out to a sufficient degree what they are
agreeing to/contracting for; caveat emptor.

But who should she have asked to be certain of:-
a) getting accurate advice
b) not being ripped off

Organisations like CORGI love to give ambiguous advice in their favour...

Regards. Terry.

PS. Love those bottom 'one liners' on your posts.

At least they ensure there's something worth reading in them...

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:25:12 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
derek wrote:
It seems overall I am probably paying 51% of my takings to the
government. My marginal rate could be around 55% or so. Company car
benefit (which is tax & NI on money I haven't had) at the new rates
would be the equivalent of about another 5%.


I've never quite understood this. Presumably if you pay company car
benefit, you don't need a car of your own?

I made another post at the same time as this one of yours that
addresses this point in my particular circumstances.

But I would add it's a bit of a strange concept IMO to have to pay
*Income* tax on money you've never received because you've not had to
spend it, esp. if it costs your employer little or nothing. I hope the
chancellor doesn't go any further with it I don't want to pay *Income*
tax on my oscilloscope + multimeter + PAT tester USW USW.

Unless, of course, you wouldn't normally have a car - or would
run an old banger doing all the repairs etc yourself.

Certainly, or your wife runs a car

The new C.Car ruels are also unfair IMO in that they don't distinguish
between essential car users who have the benefit of incidental private
use of a company car, and cars supplied entirely as perks.

DG

derek wrote:

But I would add it's a bit of a strange concept IMO to have to pay
*Income* tax on money you've never received because you've not had to
spend it, esp. if it costs your employer little or nothing. I hope the
chancellor doesn't go any further with it I don't want to pay *Income*
tax on my oscilloscope + multimeter + PAT tester USW USW.

The reasoning is that the company makes available to you a car,
and you get to use the car privately as well as for business.
The private use element counts as income and is taxed.

If you don't (ever) use this car for non-business purposes, then
you can ask your employer to forbid you to use it except for
business. Then it becomes "not available" for private use and
should not count as a benefit and not be taxed as income.

AIUI, ICBW, YMMV, E&OE, etc, usw.

In article ,
derek wrote:
But I would add it's a bit of a strange concept IMO to have to pay
*Income* tax on money you've never received because you've not had to
spend it, esp. if it costs your employer little or nothing. I hope the
chancellor doesn't go any further with it I don't want to pay *Income*
tax on my oscilloscope + multimeter + PAT tester USW USW.

The reason you pay tax on a company car is that it's assumed you get
private use from it, so it's a benefit in kind.

And they do tax similar things. If I get protective clothing supplied,
it's considered a benefit as it could be used for leisure. Similarly, a
taxi paid for to take me home from work after public transport has
finished is also considered a perk and taxed - even although I might have
a season ticket for public transport. Same with an hotel provided for
overnight accommodation when working away from home.

Strangely, these rules don't apply to MPs...

Unless, of course, you wouldn't normally have a car - or would
run an old banger doing all the repairs etc yourself.

Certainly, or your wife runs a car

Well, presumably she needs one in her own right - otherwise she could use
your company one?

The new C.Car ruels are also unfair IMO in that they don't distinguish
between essential car users who have the benefit of incidental private
use of a company car, and cars supplied entirely as perks.

Perhaps. But it's a very difficult thing to substantiate. If the vehicle
is purely for company use, why not get a sign written van?

--
*If at first you don't succeed, avoid skydiving.*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:02:47 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:



If you don't (ever) use this car for non-business purposes, then
you can ask your employer to forbid you to use it except for
business. Then it becomes "not available" for private use and
should not count as a benefit and not be taxed as income.

AIUI, ICBW, YMMV, E&OE, etc, usw.

I tried that, the accountant said the IR wouldn't wear it (I'm the
MD).

But I don't know that he actually went to the trouble of asking !

It's a pity because it's a large car to carry my tackle, and to be
comfortable for the long journeys I do (1,130 miles the week before
last)

:-(

DG

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 13:27:13 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:



Absolutely. I really don't think those who complain about being taxed on
a company car have ever worked out the costs of running their own - like
for like.

I do run my own -now, and my wife always did. I reckon I could make a
profit out of the no profit mileage rate over 4 years by changing to a
cheap to run car (Skoda Fabia diesel) and won't be sending 2k to the
revenue every year. If you are running your own company there's
another issue, the company gets all the running costs as well as, if
it's someone else's company it's different

DG

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 10:25:16 -0230, Terry
wrote:

However these days the UK seems to be a pretty prosperous place,
compared to 50 years ago? And consumers seem content to pay high
costs?

From the outside that may look to be the case. However one of the
things this current Labour government have excelled at is manipulating
the media - both internally and externally. The truth is so much
different to the fiction seen from afar.

Before coming to power Labour claimed, rightly from facts which were
present at the time, that the previous Tory administration had
introduced about 55 new taxes (I admit that figure may not be quite
accurate as I don't recall the exact figure - but it's somewhere
close). That was in a 19 year period of office from 1978 to 1997.

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/bus...les/timid67017

During Labours 6 years of office since 1997 they have managed to
introduce 60 new taxes - many of them by stealth. And as is their way,
they have introduced paving legislation (I think that's what it is
called) which basically translates to them being able to introduce and
change tax -and other - laws without introducing them to parliament
where they can be openly discussed and voted upon.

Gordon Brown (chancellor) has been quite famous for triple accounting
in his budgets, where the same numbers get counted multiple times in
order to make the numbers he wishes to make known. The current story
(from the Home Secretary David Blunkett) is that we are recruiting
more police and teachers than ever before. That may be true, but it
sure would put matters into perspective if they admitted the numbers
that were leaving were also higher than ever before.

Another thing Gordon did in the early days of his chancellorship was
to quietly sell off the UKs gold reserves. We used to have about 17%
reserves at the time he came to power - we now have closer to 7%.
Which means that when the UK economy does fall into trouble we haven't
got money in the bank to help us out of crisis:

http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~netking/brown.htm

Amongst other things they promised in their manifesto that during this
current parliament there would be a free vote put to the people of the
country about further European integration - as in ditching the pound
and replacing it with the Euro so that there was a common currency
across the European Union. But because there has been much public
opposition they have quietly ditched the idea and refuse to discuss
when the vote might take place.

It goes on and on and on. They give politicians a bad name, and that's
saying something.

PoP

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:42:36 +0100, derek
wrote:

But I would add it's a bit of a strange concept IMO to have to pay
*Income* tax on money you've never received because you've not had to
spend it, esp. if it costs your employer little or nothing. I hope the
chancellor doesn't go any further with it I don't want to pay *Income*
tax on my oscilloscope + multimeter + PAT tester USW USW.

You may not have heard of IR35, which initially targetted IT
consultants but in this years budget was extended to cover nannies,
butlers, gardeners, anyone who was offering personal service via a
Limited company.

If IR35 applies (and the Inland Revenue will always claim it does
despite their rhetoric) then 95% of company income MUST be treated as
personal salary - you can do what you like with the other 5%, like pay
your accountant and so on.

And that's despite you having official receipts which cannot be
ignored which might equate to 20-30% of company turnover.

So if your Limited company earned 10K for the year then the first 9.5K
would have to be accounted for as personal salary - and if your real
expenses were more than 0.5K then by government order you run the
company at a loss. Naturally, if you apply the rules for Limited
companies then you are required to close down the Limited company at
the first sign that the company cannot trade solvently and has no
possibility of paying its debts in the future.

There are cases still running between the Inland Revenue and private
Limited companies which have been active for over 2 years, causing
much stress and anxiety for the individual.

It might sound implausible, but it is fact.

PoP

In article , Derek
wrote:
I reckon I could make a profit out of the no profit mileage
rate over 4 years by changing to a cheap to run car
(Skoda Fabia diesel) and won't be sending 2k to the
revenue every year.

If it's in the lowest CO2 band you now only pay 22/40% x 15% of
the list price, i.e. £330 or £600 for a £10K car. If you do a lot
of business mileage (I do almost none) then taking 40p/mile for
your own cheap to run car probably makes more sense.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

derek wrote:

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:02:47 GMT, Ronald Raygun
wrote:

If you don't (ever) use this car for non-business purposes, then
you can ask your employer to forbid you to use it except for
business. Then it becomes "not available" for private use and
should not count as a benefit and not be taxed as income.

I tried that, the accountant said the IR wouldn't wear it (I'm the
MD).

But I don't know that he actually went to the trouble of asking !

He shouldn't need to ask, but he should be able to tell you why.
Maybe it's because, as the boss, you can forbid yourself private
use, but could equally well re-permit it at the drop of a hat.

It seems to me that, provided your office is at home, so there is
no possibility of commuting involved, then if you actually have your
own separate car for private use, then a good case can be made for
treating the business car as business-only.

In any case, wouldn't it be cheaper to run the business car privately
and charge mileage rates to your business?

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:06:14 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

And they do tax similar things. If I get protective clothing supplied,
it's considered a benefit as it could be used for leisure. Similarly, a

This is not entirely true. If you worked in a nuclear facility where
you were provided with specialist clothing then you would have a
damned good case for saying it can't possibly be used privately.

Of course, if Hector pretends that's not the case ask him to come
round to inspect your private collection of radioactive rods which you
keep in your garden shed.....

a season ticket for public transport. Same with an hotel provided for
overnight accommodation when working away from home.

You seem to work for a strange employer! In my 20+ years working for a
company which required me to work/stay away from home I never once
paid extra for overnight accomodation.

It is different if you tack on some additional overnight stays due to
your wanting an extra day or twos holiday in the remote destination.

PoP

"Orange" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Orange wrote:
The country under this fascist dictatorial regime is now becoming well
beyond a joke. If
any
f......g government jobsworth tries to enter my house and dictate to
me
what I can or cannot do in my own home, he'll be leaving on a
stretcher!

Carry on beating your wife and children, then.

No Dave, my rage has got absolutely nothing to do with the way I conduct
myself towards my family, along with millions of others it's directed
against this government, who on an almost daily basis appear to have an
agenda of introducing rules and regulations affecting ordinary decent
law-abiding people, most of whom are pefectly content to be left alone to
get on with their lives.


The micro management culture provides low grade jobs for the otherwise
unemployable and performs the double purpose of raising revenue and
depressing the unemployment stats.

Steve

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Ed Sirett wrote:
In fact you could have an extractor in the room (implausible) or in an
adjoining open plan kitchen (plausible) with the open flue fire. However
the likelihood is that aditional permanent ventilation would have to be
provided.

Surely if you use a powerful enough extractor fan with an open flue fire,
it will draw the exhaust gasses into the room?

Yep, and so a big enough hole in the wall to outside will be needed.


Exactly this happened to a pal who had a 'normal' open 'coal' fire and a
kitchen with breakfast bar through to the living area after he fitted a
powerful fan in the kitchen. The idea was to stop kitchen smells reaching
the living area, when what happened was smoke in the kitchen.

Well the idea is the same, the best practice is the same, but it does
not come under the gas regs until a gas fire is fitted.


--
*If they arrest the Energizer Bunny, would they charge it with battery? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

On 6 Oct 2003 17:20:25 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Oh, and these rules don't apply to large companies, which contribute to
Labour Party coffers. Only to small (one man band) businesses.

......where the one man owns 5% or more of the shares of the company,
and the other shares don't belong to a "connected person".

You also managed to leave out (tut, tut...) Labour party supporters
and doners. For some reason the Inland Revenue seem to leave them
alone when it comes to tax affairs.

Remember the Bernie Eccleston affair? He donated £1M to Labour who got
found out. They paid it back as you would expect of any honest
political party. I heard a rumour that Eccleston may have "forgotten"
to cash the cheque.....

PoP

In article ,
PoP wrote:
You may not have heard of IR35, which initially targetted IT
consultants but in this years budget was extended to cover nannies,
butlers, gardeners, anyone who was offering personal service via a
Limited company.

IIRC, this is because they are deriving their income from only one source
- ie acting like an employee.

If IR35 applies (and the Inland Revenue will always claim it does
despite their rhetoric) then 95% of company income MUST be treated as
personal salary - you can do what you like with the other 5%, like pay
your accountant and so on.

Perhaps it's the system that allows employers to treat what is staff in
all but name as self employed. A truly self employed person will have
several different sources of income. If a firm chooses to employ him on
what amounts to a permanent basis - these days - they should be forced to
pay the usual employer contributions and have the same responsibilities.
Otherwise the taxpayer in general is subsidising that firm.

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:06:14 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

Same with an hotel provided for
overnight accommodation when working away from home.

Thats strange, AFAIK if your employer requires you to work away from home,
you shouldnt be taxed on that.



greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

"Ed Sirett" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Ed Sirett wrote:
In fact you could have an extractor in the room (implausible) or in an
adjoining open plan kitchen (plausible) with the open flue fire.
However
the likelihood is that aditional permanent ventilation would have to
be
provided.

Surely if you use a powerful enough extractor fan with an open flue
fire,
it will draw the exhaust gasses into the room?

Yep, and so a big enough hole in the wall to outside will be needed.


Exactly this happened to a pal who had a 'normal' open 'coal' fire and
a
kitchen with breakfast bar through to the living area after he fitted a
powerful fan in the kitchen. The idea was to stop kitchen smells
reaching
the living area, when what happened was smoke in the kitchen.

Well the idea is the same, the best practice is the same, but it does
not come under the gas regs until a gas fire is fitted.


I fitted a ceiling fan in the bedroom, but because it's a modern house with
a low ceiling and I'm six foot tall it whirls away about eight inches above
my head, so I have to try and remember not to pull off an item of clothing
over my head when standing underneath!

On browsing the fitting instructions there is a section that says "Caution:
do not use ceiling fans and open gas heating appliances at the same time in
the same room"... it doesn't say anything about it not being legal.





--
*If they arrest the Energizer Bunny, would they charge it with battery?
*

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

Hi RichardS
In you wrote:
especially if you stock up on (soon to be non-compliant) black and red
cable.....

This may be a really stupid question, but what is black and red being
replaced with? Why do you need to stock up on black and red?

--
Fishter
unhook to mail me | http://www.fishter.org.uk/
Is that belt buckle your ID?

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:25:51 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:06:14 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

Same with an hotel provided for
overnight accommodation when working away from home.

Thats strange, AFAIK if your employer requires you to work away from home,
you shouldnt be taxed on that.


I missed that, you aren't I've used hotels 2-3 times per week since
1974 and never paid tax. It has to be an expense that's related to the
job that anyone would incurr (customer in Inverness, say), and not to
the individual ('cos he lives in the back of beyond, say).

DG

"Fishter" wrote in message ...
Hi RichardS
In you wrote:
especially if you stock up on (soon to be non-compliant) black and red
cable.....

This may be a really stupid question, but what is black and red being
replaced with?

IIRC Brown and Blue (or some other colours for three phase)
(it was posted here a month or so ago)

Why do you need to stock up on black and red?

Um, so you can pretend that the work was done, before both the
rules changed and the colour of T&E changed at about the same
time.

Tim



--
Fishter
unhook to mail me | http://www.fishter.org.uk/
Is that belt buckle your ID?

"Huge" wrote in message ...
"Owain" writes:

[31 lines snipped]

And the new regs won't stop those people who extend table lamp
flexes with terminal strip or public information film plug in their drill
with matchsticks instead of a proper plug /, etc.

Matchsticks conduct electricity? Isn't that *dangerous*? )

yes, I'm still trying to work this out

Tim





--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]