Roger Chapman ) wibbled on Sunday 20 February 2011
22:57:

On 20/02/2011 21:43, Tim Watts wrote:
When I left school in 1972, £5000 per annum was a salary to aspire to.
I'm now on four times that, almost, and I'm permanently skint....


Ten years earlier I left school at 18 with the ambition (then or shortly
thereafter) to be earning £1000 pa by the time I was 20, £1500 by 25 and
£2000 by 30. (In real terms I failed miserably but inflation eventually
made my ambition nonsense). IIRC average income mid 60s was £1500 and
£4000 would buy a reasonable house. (£4000 bought me one in 1968).

IIRC my dad was on about 100/week around about 1973-4 (I assume that was
net) as an engineer (but that was Civil Service by then).

The Civil Service doesn't actually pay very well so I would have thought
that in 1973-74 your father would be unlikely to be on more than £2500
gross, not £5000 net and it could have been less judging by the house
price. A 75% mortgage on a £6000 house would have been achievable on a
mere £1800. (Max. 2.5 time annual salary).

I wonder if it was 100/month net?...



--
Tim Watts

On 20 Feb,
Tim Watts wrote:

So houses have definately doubled WRT wages if not more, which explains why
all married types need to have 2 jobs these days and the days of a stay at
home parent are over unless one has a mega financial parasite type job.

That's because (until recently) banks/building societies would lend out up to
5x salary, compared to 2.5x (+1 possibly for spouse) and demanded a 15%
deposit (which could be reduced with an insurance policy taken out).

Houses cost more or less what the lenders will lend.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On 21/02/2011 01:31, John Rumm wrote:
On 18/02/2011 09:45, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/02/2011 in message
harry
wrote:

expect he died rich. I expect the skiving git was in Jersey to avoid
paying taxes.

He moved to Jersey the day he sold the Workmate to B&D. From memory he
got £3 million but if he'd stayed here he would have lost a lot of it in
taxes.

He would have probably lost £2,940,000 in tax! (given it was probably
during the 70's when the 98% tax rate applied to "unearned income" such
as royalties from inventions etc).

I can't find a definitive date for when he sold the Workmate design to B
& D but I think it could well have been in the mid - late 60s. The sale
itself would have been subject to Capital Gains Tax at 30% maximum and
quite possibly less.

I don't know for sure but I would have thought that royalties on an
invention would be classed as earned income rather than unearned income.
Hickman moved to Jersey in 1977 leaving behind a income tax regime that
penalised just about everybody. Even us plebs had been paying a basic
rate of 35% for the past two years and most would have left the country
given half a chance. Higher rates went up to 83% on earned income and,
as John has already pointed out, 98% on unearned income.

The Independent had a piece on Hickman on Saturday which gave him the
credit for the earlier Elite as well as the Elan. Other sources suggest
Hickman didn't join Lotus until 1958, the same year the Elite was
launched, and Hickman's involvement with the Elite was production
engineering rather than design.

Said other sources also give Hickman credit for the Plus 2 and the
Europa in addition to the Elan and, on the Workmate, included this point:

"For the second Workmate prototype Ron used Elan wishbones on either
side of the frame in a vertical position. Bet you didn’t know that the
Lotus Elan and the B&D Workmate were ‘related’."

I will now go out into the barn and kick the wheels of the old wreck
that has resided thereabouts for the last 30 odd years just for old
times sake. I wonder if Hickman's death will make defunct Lotuses a more
saleable commodity. ;-)

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
I don't know for sure but I would have thought that royalties on an
invention would be classed as earned income rather than unearned income.
Hickman moved to Jersey in 1977 leaving behind a income tax regime that
penalised just about everybody. Even us plebs had been paying a basic
rate of 35% for the past two years and most would have left the country
given half a chance. Higher rates went up to 83% on earned income and,
as John has already pointed out, 98% on unearned income.

All that happened since is taxation was swopped from direct to indirect.
Meaning the average to lower paid have more of an *overall* tax burden.
Unless a hermit.

The majority really are rather clueless about how much of their money goes
on tax - and seem to prefer indirect rather than direct. And that only
favours the rich...

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 20/02/11 23:43, wrote:
On 20 Feb,
Tim Watts wrote:

So houses have definately doubled WRT wages if not more, which explains why
all married types need to have 2 jobs these days and the days of a stay at
home parent are over unless one has a mega financial parasite type job.

That's because (until recently) banks/building societies would lend out up to
5x salary, compared to 2.5x (+1 possibly for spouse) and demanded a 15%
deposit (which could be reduced with an insurance policy taken out).

Houses cost more or less what the lenders will lend.

True. And are two income households a cause or consequence of house-price
inflation?

When I bought my flat in 1985 I had a 20% deposit and the mortgage was a
little over twice my salary. I'm earning more now,but not that much more
allowing for inflation; and even discounting the wilder fantasiesof estate
agents the flat would probably sell for at least six times my present
annual income.

--
djc

On 21/02/2011 10:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I don't know for sure but I would have thought that royalties on an
invention would be classed as earned income rather than unearned income.
Hickman moved to Jersey in 1977 leaving behind a income tax regime that
penalised just about everybody. Even us plebs had been paying a basic
rate of 35% for the past two years and most would have left the country
given half a chance. Higher rates went up to 83% on earned income and,
as John has already pointed out, 98% on unearned income.

All that happened since is taxation was swopped from direct to indirect.

You might think that but the way I see it is rather different.

A single man in 1975-76 on an income of £2380 would have paid 25% of his
gross income in income tax but in 2011-12 his counterpart on an income
of £23800 will only pay 13.7%. In order to up his tax burden to 25%
(ignoring NIC and lower rate VAT) he will have to spend about 85% of his
net income on goods that attract VAT at 20%. Given that food and Council
tax alone are going to exceed 25% of his net income clearly that isn't
possible and meanwhile 1976 man still had to pay 8% standard rate VAT
and 25% higher rate VAT out of his net income.

Meaning the average to lower paid have more of an *overall* tax burden.
Unless a hermit.

I don't think that follows at all. It is just that those at the bottom
of the heap have gained much less from the increase in GDP per head than
those at the top. 15p off the basic rate is worth bugger all to someone
on a really low income but over £5 grand to the higher rate whingers who
are now carping about the much smaller losses they are now about to suffer.

The majority really are rather clueless about how much of their money goes
on tax - and seem to prefer indirect rather than direct. And that only
favours the rich...

It is the really rich who call the shots regardless of which party is in
power. They don't put millions into party funds without the expectation
of a quid pro quo or at least an Honour or two.

wrote:
On 20 Feb,
Tim Watts wrote:

So houses have definately doubled WRT wages if not more, which explains why
all married types need to have 2 jobs these days and the days of a stay at
home parent are over unless one has a mega financial parasite type job.

That's because (until recently) banks/building societies would lend out up to
5x salary, compared to 2.5x (+1 possibly for spouse) and demanded a 15%
deposit (which could be reduced with an insurance policy taken out).

Houses cost more or less what the lenders will lend.

I've seen here two almost identical houses on the same street with the
mortgageable one selling for twice the price of the unmortgageable one.
The only real difference I could find was a mine tunnel under the cheap
one. The mine closed over thirty years ago, and the houses were 19th
Century.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 01:31:55 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 19/02/2011 11:16, The Medway Handyman wrote:


Could you actually buy much of a house in Jersey for £3M?

IIRC he bought land and designed and built his own house with all sorts
of "modern" ideas included in it.

The design of his house was the subject of (iirc) an Open University
programme a few years back.


--

On 21/02/2011 10:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

All that happened since is taxation was swopped from direct to indirect.
Meaning the average to lower paid have more of an *overall* tax burden.
Unless a hermit.

The majority really are rather clueless about how much of their money goes
on tax - and seem to prefer indirect rather than direct. And that only
favours the rich...


I think a lot of people are pretty clueless about how much _other_
people pay too.

Take that rich man in his castle. He'll be paying 50% income tax, 2%
employees NI, and 13.8% employers NI on practically every penny he earns
(assuming the allowances are too small to make much difference!). so he
gets about a third of what he costs his company.

One assumes he has a butler, gardener, and all that. So out of his
income he then pays them. And that includes 13.8% employer's NI...

For next tax year the highest marginal tax rate will be 65.8%. And if
you think it's fair to tax the rich - remember that unlike the rest of
us, they can up sticks and leave, taking their money with them.

Andy

In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
For next tax year the highest marginal tax rate will be 65.8%. And if
you think it's fair to tax the rich - remember that unlike the rest of
us, they can up sticks and leave, taking their money with them.

If they really want to live elsewhere - let them go and good riddance.
Anyone who thinks money the most important thing in life is best elsewhere.

--
*One of us is thinking about sex... OK, it's me.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2/19/2011 12:13 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2011-02-19, The Medway wrote:

On 19/02/2011 10:55, Huge wrote:


if you had 3m would you stay put ?

The trouble is that £3M isn't enough to lead a millionaire's lifestyle
these days. OK, you could retire and lead a comfortable middle-class
existence, but you wouldn't be rich, rich, rich. Especially if you had to
buy a house out of the £3M.



Could you actually buy much of a house in Jersey for £3M?

There's only one house on Rightmove in Jersey. It's £12,000,000

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-28430335.html



Have you requested details yet? O:-)

Don

On 22 Feb 2011 11:16:59 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-02-22, Donwill wrote:
On 2/19/2011 12:13 PM, Huge wrote:

There's only one house on Rightmove in Jersey. It's £12,000,000

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-28430335.html


Have you requested details yet? O:-)

No. I wouldn't live there even if I had the money.

Neither would I, Bergerac showed it to be a place full of crime and
crooks everywhere you turned.


--

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:49:58 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
For next tax year the highest marginal tax rate will be 65.8%. And if
you think it's fair to tax the rich - remember that unlike the rest of
us, they can up sticks and leave, taking their money with them.

If they really want to live elsewhere - let them go and good riddance.
Anyone who thinks money the most important thing in life is best elsewhere.

And what a hell of a ******* place "elsewhere" would turn into.

Full of people like O, O, Antonio (Blair) + "£8k Hair Do" ( Cherie ).

2nd thoughts, you're right Dave. It's a really good idea.

Derek G

On 22/02/2011 12:48, Huge wrote:

I meant the house, not Jersey. Although I doubt I would live on Jersey,
either. Blanket 25mph speed limits? Naah.

The 2011 census is nearly upon us. In 2001 there was a campaign to
record ones religion as 'Jedi'. How about this time around a concerted
campaign to record ones religion as 'Speed'. Petrolheads of the world
unite - you have nothing to lose bar your speed limits. ;-)

In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
Neither would I, Bergerac showed it to be a place full of crime and
crooks everywhere you turned.

Absolutely. And when he moved on to Midsomer, it's surprising they can
still find enough residents to make a story about.

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Derek G. wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:49:58 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article , Andy
Champ wrote:
For next tax year the highest marginal tax rate will be 65.8%. And
if you think it's fair to tax the rich - remember that unlike the
rest of us, they can up sticks and leave, taking their money with
them.

If they really want to live elsewhere - let them go and good riddance.
Anyone who thinks money the most important thing in life is best
elsewhere.

And what a hell of a ******* place "elsewhere" would turn into.

Full of people like O, O, Antonio (Blair) + "£8k Hair Do" ( Cherie ).

2nd thoughts, you're right Dave. It's a really good idea.

It's usually some overpaid sportsman or entertainer anyway. Who wants to
live here for the social life. And seem to think they have actually earned
their money. ;-)

--
*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The Other Mike wrote:

On 22 Feb 2011 11:16:59 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2011-02-22, Donwill wrote:
On 2/19/2011 12:13 PM, Huge wrote:

There's only one house on Rightmove in Jersey. It's £12,000,000

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-28430335.html

Have you requested details yet? O:-)

No. I wouldn't live there even if I had the money.

Neither would I, Bergerac showed it to be a place full of crime and
crooks everywhere you turned.

And if you thought Jersey was bad, you should see Midsomer!

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
On 21/02/2011 10:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

All that happened since is taxation was swopped from direct to indirect.
Meaning the average to lower paid have more of an *overall* tax burden.
Unless a hermit.

The majority really are rather clueless about how much of their money
goes
on tax - and seem to prefer indirect rather than direct. And that only
favours the rich...


I think a lot of people are pretty clueless about how much _other_ people
pay too.

Take that rich man in his castle. He'll be paying 50% income tax, 2%
employees NI, and 13.8% employers NI on practically every penny he earns
(assuming the allowances are too small to make much difference!). so he
gets about a third of what he costs his company.

One assumes he has a butler, gardener, and all that. So out of his income
he then pays them. And that includes 13.8% employer's NI...

For next tax year the highest marginal tax rate will be 65.8%.

Next year the highest marginal tax rate will be in excess of 200,000%.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out how.

Personally, I think that this is a criminal tax charge (and I'm not even
affected by it)

tim

In article ,
ldomain says...
Neither would I, Bergerac showed it to be a place full of crime and
crooks everywhere you turned.

And if you thought Jersey was bad, you should see Midsomer!

And if and old lady called Marple moves into the village - move out
fast.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

In article ,
says...
It's usually some overpaid sportsman or entertainer anyway.


IRTA overplaid and thought of golfers in tartan.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

tim.... wrote:

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...

For next tax year the highest marginal tax rate will be 65.8%.

Next year the highest marginal tax rate will be in excess of 200,000%.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out how.

Since 200 kilopercent is a silly rate, I presume you have identified
some income threshold the crossing of which involves a sudden increase
in taxation of over £2000, and since tax is assessed on whole pounds
only, that increase in taxation would be attributed to an income
increase of just one pound. Technically that is indeed a huge marginal
rate, but of course it applies to an income band only one pound wide.

I'm pretty sure none of the ordinary tax rules incorporate such a jump,
so I'm guessing it involves a loss of entitlement to £2000 worth of
tax credit somewhere. Am I right? The TC system edifice is just such
a quagmire that I've never even attempted to understand how it works.

On 17/02/2011 23:31, Steve Firth wrote:
Inventor of the Workmate, the tool that's almost as useful as an angle
grinder. Also designer of the Lotus Élan so that's two attempts that he's
had to kill DIY enthusiasts.

We should demonstrate our affection for the deceased by using a Workmate as
a ladder, attempting to change a lightbulb and then spending all night in
casualty. It's what he would have wanted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-12496609

His son is married to my daughter's sister-in-law. A tenuous connection
I know, but by all accounts he was an utter *******.

Another Dave

On Feb 23, 9:50*am, Ronald Raygun
wrote:
tim.... wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
.uk...

For next tax year the highest marginal tax rate will be 65.8%.

Next year the highest marginal tax rate will be in excess of 200,000%.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out how.

Since 200 kilopercent is a silly rate, I presume you have identified
some income threshold the crossing of which involves a sudden increase
in taxation of over 2000, and since tax is assessed on whole pounds
only, that increase in taxation would be attributed to an income
increase of just one pound. *Technically that is indeed a huge marginal
rate, but of course it applies to an income band only one pound wide.

If your income went from 199,999.99 to 200,000.00 you would pay tax
(at 50%) on a whole extra pound, despite having only earned another
1p. 50p tax on 1p earnings is 5,000%. I think there are some
thresholds which cause you to lose all of an allowance which makes the
marginal rate insane.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:50:03 +0000, Ronald Raygun wrote:

The TC system edifice is just such a quagmire that I've never even
attempted to understand how it works.

Same here, I just give them some figures, they give me some money.
B-)

How they come to the sum of money they give me I haven't a clue, nor
do they give any explanation as to how they arrive at them other than
in terms of very loose descriptive words.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
tim.... wrote:

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...

For next tax year the highest marginal tax rate will be 65.8%.

Next year the highest marginal tax rate will be in excess of 200,000%.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out how.

Since 200 kilopercent is a silly rate, I presume you have identified
some income threshold the crossing of which involves a sudden increase
in taxation of over £2000, and since tax is assessed on whole pounds
only, that increase in taxation would be attributed to an income
increase of just one pound. Technically that is indeed a huge marginal
rate, but of course it applies to an income band only one pound wide.


Yes, but it is the removal of a benefit, not an actual tax payment that is
triggered. But to the man in the street that is the same thing.

In article ,
says...
or worse - that bird from murder she wrote!


Grand-daughter of a leader of the Labour Party. There - a bit of trivia
for you.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

Martin Bonner wrote:

On Feb 23, 9:50 am, Ronald Raygun
wrote:
tim.... wrote:
"Andy Champ" wrote in message
.uk...

For next tax year the highest marginal tax rate will be 65.8%.

Next year the highest marginal tax rate will be in excess of 200,000%.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out how.

Since 200 kilopercent is a silly rate, I presume you have identified
some income threshold the crossing of which involves a sudden increase
in taxation of over 2000, and since tax is assessed on whole pounds
only, that increase in taxation would be attributed to an income
increase of just one pound. Technically that is indeed a huge marginal
rate, but of course it applies to an income band only one pound wide.

If your income went from 199,999.99 to 200,000.00 you would pay tax
(at 50%) on a whole extra pound, despite having only earned another
1p. 50p tax on 1p earnings is 5,000%.

But don't forget that before the 1p pay rise you didn't pay tax on the
whole 199,999.99, but only on 199,999.00. The extra 99p were tax free.

There is no point in drawing attention to 1p-wide tax bands in which
the marginal rate is 5k% without also conceding that these bands are
surrounded by 99p-wide bands in which the marginal rate is zero.

Ronald Raygun ) wibbled on Thursday 24
February 2011 12:02:

But don't forget that before the 1p pay rise you didn't pay tax on the
whole 199,999.99, but only on 199,999.00. The extra 99p were tax free.

There is no point in drawing attention to 1p-wide tax bands in which
the marginal rate is 5k% without also conceding that these bands are
surrounded by 99p-wide bands in which the marginal rate is zero.

[Even more OT]

Had a fit last night. Thought I'd done last years tax return (well, it has
been a manic year plus we moved so I don't think I got the initial request)
- but yesterday I got 2 letters saying I hadn't = fines.

Turns out the fines are cancelled if you don't owe any tax - so did the
returns and discovered repayments due to us totally 98 quid.

So to the Tax Office: *Bllrrrp!* for all the swearing you made me do.

I was advised to ring another department to aks them to stop sending tax
returns as we're all PAYE here (this stems back to when I was self employed
in 2006) but as they seem to keep owing me money, albeit is small amounts,
perhaps I won't... Makes you wonder about the tax system and PAYE though...

--
Tim Watts

Tim Watts wrote:
Ronald Raygun ) wibbled on Thursday 24
February 2011 12:02:

But don't forget that before the 1p pay rise you didn't pay tax on the
whole 199,999.99, but only on 199,999.00. The extra 99p were tax free.

There is no point in drawing attention to 1p-wide tax bands in which
the marginal rate is 5k% without also conceding that these bands are
surrounded by 99p-wide bands in which the marginal rate is zero.

[Even more OT]

Had a fit last night. Thought I'd done last years tax return (well, it has
been a manic year plus we moved so I don't think I got the initial request)
- but yesterday I got 2 letters saying I hadn't = fines.

Turns out the fines are cancelled if you don't owe any tax - so did the
returns and discovered repayments due to us totally 98 quid.

So to the Tax Office: *Bllrrrp!* for all the swearing you made me do.

I was advised to ring another department to aks them to stop sending tax
returns as we're all PAYE here (this stems back to when I was self employed
in 2006) but as they seem to keep owing me money, albeit is small amounts,
perhaps I won't... Makes you wonder about the tax system and PAYE though...

Lucky you. The accountants bill for recovering £174 of tax deducted that
shouldn't be, was nearly £400.

The Natural Philosopher ) wibbled on Thursday 24
February 2011 13:12:

Lucky you. The accountants bill for recovering £174 of tax deducted that
shouldn't be, was nearly £400.

My personal experience is that accountants are generally useless overpaid
******s

Luckily our tax return consists of "read P60" and "look at online bank
statements and tot up savings related interest, taxed at source".

Curiously, RBS have now made bank statements available online back to around
2003 which is quite a step forward for them...

--
Tim Watts

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well this accountant has made me a lot more in the past so he is always
forgiven.

But next year I'll D-I-Y the bloody thing.

I'll bet you said that last year.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:26:33 +0000, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Easily solved by the ONE

Oh dear, Drivel is off again.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Lucky you. The accountants bill for recovering £174 of tax deducted
that shouldn't be, was nearly £400.

My personal experience is that accountants are generally useless
overpaid ******s

I've got nothing but praise for the one I used. He once worked for the IR
so knows all the ins and outs.

--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:26:33 +0000, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Easily solved by the ONE

Oh dear, Drivel is off again.

EIOE seems to have got his measure. That post appeared here as:-

Lines: 181
Bytes: 11101

Which makes more sense than usual.

--
*If you can read this, thank a teecher

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Tim Watts wrote:
The Natural Philosopher ) wibbled on Thursday 24
February 2011 13:12:

Lucky you. The accountants bill for recovering £174 of tax deducted that
shouldn't be, was nearly £400.

My personal experience is that accountants are generally useless overpaid
******s

Luckily our tax return consists of "read P60" and "look at online bank
statements and tot up savings related interest, taxed at source".

Curiously, RBS have now made bank statements available online back to around
2003 which is quite a step forward for them...

Well this accountant has made me a lot more in the past so he is always
forgiven.

But next year I'll D-I-Y the bloody thing.

Ronald Raygun wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well this accountant has made me a lot more in the past so he is always
forgiven.

But next year I'll D-I-Y the bloody thing.

I'll bet you said that last year.

:-)

Top marks.

On 24/02/2011 13:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
Ronald Raygun ) wibbled on Thursday 24
February 2011 12:02:

But don't forget that before the 1p pay rise you didn't pay tax on the
whole 199,999.99, but only on 199,999.00. The extra 99p were tax free.

There is no point in drawing attention to 1p-wide tax bands in which
the marginal rate is 5k% without also conceding that these bands are
surrounded by 99p-wide bands in which the marginal rate is zero.

[Even more OT]

Had a fit last night. Thought I'd done last years tax return (well, it
has been a manic year plus we moved so I don't think I got the initial
request) - but yesterday I got 2 letters saying I hadn't = fines.

Turns out the fines are cancelled if you don't owe any tax - so did
the returns and discovered repayments due to us totally 98 quid.

So to the Tax Office: *Bllrrrp!* for all the swearing you made me do.

I was advised to ring another department to aks them to stop sending
tax returns as we're all PAYE here (this stems back to when I was self
employed in 2006) but as they seem to keep owing me money, albeit is
small amounts, perhaps I won't... Makes you wonder about the tax
system and PAYE though...

Lucky you. The accountants bill for recovering £174 of tax deducted that
shouldn't be, was nearly £400.

My accountants bill was £175 - but since he saved me £320 at the stroke
of a pen I didn't mind :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ronald Raygun wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well this accountant has made me a lot more in the past so he is
always
forgiven.

But next year I'll D-I-Y the bloody thing.
I'll bet you said that last year.
:-)

Top marks.

Trouble is the UK tax system is so bloody complicated that DIY-ing the
tax return is not so easy. Whereas in the US it used to take me about an
hour, once a year.

Capital gains is the worst aspect. the income is not too hard.

Trying to woprk outm, which, of many rferwent buy/sell episodes of
differing stock block sizes, constitutes a gain or loss is ..challenging.

When frequent trading was costing me more in accountants fees than it
made, I stopped.. Now it's just ' buy a block, hold, sell a block' as
opportunities arise, or buy and hold a block for several years..

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
My accountants bill was £175 - but since he saved me £320 at the stroke
of a pen I didn't mind :-)

If you're self employed, a decent accountant will know what expenses the
IR will accept without question. DIYing it means they are more likely to
quibble.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
My accountants bill was £175 - but since he saved me £320 at the stroke
of a pen I didn't mind :-)

If you're self employed, a decent accountant will know what expenses the
IR will accept without question. DIYing it means they are more likely to
quibble.

IME they will also know which expensed you can "make up" without then
quibbling :-(

tim