On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:07:27 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"chuffed_2_bits" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...
QED
LOL, hey IMM, do you regularly frequent any other ng's?
If so, please provide a list. I enjoy a good laugh.
I think your best so far is the 'demolish the building and number the
bricks', a classic.

You are obviously very naive and silly. This is what they did to London
bridge.

Yes but that was to sell it to the Americans - a somewhat different
proposition


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:07:27 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"chuffed_2_bits" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...
QED
LOL, hey IMM, do you regularly frequent any other ng's?
If so, please provide a list. I enjoy a good laugh.
I think your best so far is the 'demolish the building and number the
bricks', a classic.

You are obviously very naive and silly. This is what they did to London
bridge.

Yes but that was to sell it to the Americans - a somewhat different
proposition

You are sillier. The idea was to take it down and re-erect. "Exactly" the
same idea.

Great budget eh! The longest sustained growth in 200 years. fabulous!

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:45:19 UTC, "chuffed_2_bits"
wrote:


"IMM" wrote in message
...
QED
LOL, hey IMM, do you regularly frequent any other ng's?
If so, please provide a list. I enjoy a good laugh.
I think your best so far is the 'demolish the building and number the
bricks', a classic.

He has gone very quiet on the whole IP address issue....beaten!

--
Bob Eager
begin by not using Outlook Express...

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:45:19 UTC, "chuffed_2_bits"
wrote:


"IMM" wrote in message
...
QED
LOL, hey IMM, do you regularly frequent any other ng's?
If so, please provide a list. I enjoy a good laugh.
I think your best so far is the 'demolish the building and number the
bricks', a classic.

He has gone very quiet on the whole IP address issue....beaten!

Can't be bothered. Anyone who shouts the virtues of TCP/IP knows little of
comms.

chuffed_2_bits wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message
...

QED

LOL, hey IMM, do you regularly frequent any other ng's?
If so, please provide a list. I enjoy a good laugh.
I think your best so far is the 'demolish the building and number the
bricks', a classic.




Er, no. That was my suggestion as to what IMM's suggestion would be.

IMM wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:45:19 UTC, "chuffed_2_bits"
wrote:


"IMM" wrote in message
...

QED

LOL, hey IMM, do you regularly frequent any other ng's?
If so, please provide a list. I enjoy a good laugh.
I think your best so far is the 'demolish the building and number the
bricks', a classic.

He has gone very quiet on the whole IP address issue....beaten!


Can't be bothered. Anyone who shouts the virtues of TCP/IP knows little of
comms.



But a lot about theCOMMercial realities of life, and teh Real World, as
distinct from the Brown and Bliar ( pandering to fools ) Bummper Book Of
FairyTales and How Things Work, Honestly.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:28:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


You are obviously very naive and silly. This is what they did to London
bridge.

Yes but that was to sell it to the Americans - a somewhat different
proposition

You are sillier. The idea was to take it down and re-erect.

You can get little blue tablets if that's your problem......


Great budget eh!

I'll let you know when I get the report from my accountant about the
Finance Bill. Last year's one had the extra stealth tax of a
percentage more on all earnings.
This year's has gouged small businesses so Gordon has made no friends
there.


The longest sustained growth in 200 years. fabulous!

So if it's so good, why does so much money need to be borrowed by the
government....???


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:

I'll let you know when I get the report from my accountant about
the Finance Bill.

The 100% write-down for computer equipment is
disappearing at the end of March. Luckily I
need a laptop for a job in April, so placed
the order last Tuesday.

--
Tony Williams.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:28:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


You are obviously very naive and silly. This is what they did to
London
bridge.

Yes but that was to sell it to the Americans - a somewhat different
proposition

You are sillier. The idea was to take it down and re-erect.

You can get little blue tablets if that's your problem......

Great budget eh!

I'll let you know when I get the report from my accountant about the
Finance Bill. Last year's one had the extra stealth tax of a
percentage more on all earnings.
This year's has gouged small businesses so Gordon has made no friends
there.

The longest sustained growth in 200 years. fabulous!

So if it's so good, why does so much money need to be borrowed by the
government....???

You should understand what I wroite. I wrote: "The longest sustained growth
in 200 years. fabulous!"

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:45:19 UTC, "chuffed_2_bits"
wrote:


"IMM" wrote in message
...

QED

LOL, hey IMM, do you regularly frequent any other ng's?
If so, please provide a list. I enjoy a good laugh.
I think your best so far is the 'demolish the building and number the
bricks', a classic.

He has gone very quiet on the whole IP address issue....beaten!


Can't be bothered. Anyone who shouts the virtues of TCP/IP knows little
of
comms.

But a lot about theCOMMercial realities of life, and teh Real World, as
distinct from the Brown and Bliar ( pandering to fools ) Bummper Book Of
FairyTales and How Things Work, Honestly.

Our snotty uni person pontificates again. He sees black where there is
white.

IMM wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Your ignorance of computing abounds. IP address are dynamic and
that of the local ISP, not individual machines. So many people
could have the same IP address at many times. Duh!

Not actually true.

ISPs with dial up users will typically, but not necessarily have a
dynamic address pool for those users. They may also assign dynamic
addresses for the cheaper DSL packages.

I can appreciate that that is possibly what you have.

The more expensive "broadband" packages allocate the customer one
static IP address and may on request provide a larger block if
needed.

No ISP allocates one IP address to one individual user, unless it is
a large user. IP addresses are scarce, very scare. One of the big
problems of TC/IP is that the addressing stinks, although this is
being worked on.

My ISP has given me a whole (small) block of fixed static routable
public IP addresses. I am only large in the physical sense of the
word....

"blah" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Your ignorance of computing abounds. IP address are dynamic and
that of the local ISP, not individual machines. So many people
could have the same IP address at many times. Duh!

Not actually true.

ISPs with dial up users will typically, but not necessarily have a
dynamic address pool for those users. They may also assign dynamic
addresses for the cheaper DSL packages.

I can appreciate that that is possibly what you have.

The more expensive "broadband" packages allocate the customer one
static IP address and may on request provide a larger block if
needed.

No ISP allocates one IP address to one individual user, unless it is
a large user. IP addresses are scarce, very scare. One of the big
problems of TC/IP is that the addressing stinks, although this is
being worked on.

My ISP has given me a whole (small) block of fixed static routable
public IP addresses. I am only large in the physical sense of the
word....



This is true. An ISP on a decent broadband package will give you a static
IP address or a small range of IP addresses.

Users who have the most basic of broadband services will get allocated a
unique IP address that is leased for 24 hours before being returned to the
pool of IP addresses for reallocation. Normally you will get the same IP
address back though even though you are on dynamic IP addressing. As the
number of IP addresseses are getting low then the IP ranges that are
allocated to internal networks are being freed up for ISP usage. A typical
example would be the 82.X.X.X range of IP addresses that are now being used
by ISPS. No 2 internet users can have the same IP address though.

The new IP addresses (that I believe windows XP can handle) basically have
six numbers in its range of X.X.X.X.X.X rather than the current arrangement
of X.X.X.X.

Andrew.



Andrew.

Andy Hall wrote:

This year's has gouged small businesses so Gordon has made no friends
there.

Tell me about it - the 19% flat on dividends is not looking nice at all.

--
Grunff

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:28:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

[ re Budget ]

The longest sustained growth in 200 years. fabulous!

So if it's so good, why does so much money need to be borrowed by the
government....???

You should understand what I wroite. I wrote: "The longest sustained
growth
in 200 years. fabulous!"


If there is so much money sloshing around due to this growth why does the
country (HMG) have to borrow so much money ?

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:28:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

[ re Budget ]

The longest sustained growth in 200 years. fabulous!

So if it's so good, why does so much money need to be borrowed by the
government....???

You should understand what I wroite. I wrote: "The longest sustained
growth
in 200 years. fabulous!"

If there is so much money sloshing around due to this growth why does the
country (HMG) have to borrow so much money ?

Ring G Brown 11 Downing St London SW1. He knows.

Grunff wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

This year's has gouged small businesses so Gordon has made no friends
there.


Tell me about it - the 19% flat on dividends is not looking nice at all.

Only for businesses with profits under 50K - so yet again he is playing
screw the small guy...

Seems like part of a bigger "bait and switch" con anyway - lure lots of
small sole traders and partnerships to incorporate with the promise of a
0% corporation tax band... then shaft them a couple of years later.

Not only that, he did not remove any of the unworkable nonsense
legislation like IR35 or S660

Looks like the noise you can now hear is the last gasps of the golden
goose being throttled!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

Tell me about it - the 19% flat on dividends is not looking nice at all.

Only for businesses with profits under 50K - so yet again he is playing
screw the small guy...

How does that work out? (I don't do our taxes, or pretend to understand
most of it - it just sounded bad).

--
Grunff

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Grunff wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

This year's has gouged small businesses so Gordon has made no friends
there.


Tell me about it - the 19% flat on dividends is not looking nice at all.

Only for businesses with profits under 50K - so yet again he is playing
screw the small guy...

Seems like part of a bigger "bait and switch" con anyway - lure lots of
small sole traders and partnerships to incorporate with the promise of a
0% corporation tax band... then shaft them a couple of years later.

Not only that, he did not remove any of the unworkable nonsense
legislation like IR35 or S660


S660 will work - unfortunately. Be prepared to be stuffed. The first case
comes up soon but it is widely reckoned to go to the revenue - not fair, but
legal.

The tax on dividends has been brought in partly because of the abject
failure of IR35. If you consider yourself inside IR35 then Mr. Brown is
happy, if you have managed to place yourself outside then you'll get stuffed
by this.

At least, that's my small understanding of what has been announced and what
I've had to go through in the last few years.

Tony

In article , John Rumm
wrote:
Only for businesses with profits under 50K -

Who are distributing all their profits

so yet again he is playing screw the small guy...

Screw the small one who has no intention of growing. Those who are
retaining profits to grow their businesses and/or strengthen their
balance sheets are less or not affected. IMO what he did was much more
sensible than the alternatives of removing the 0% band which would have
hurt small companies that want to grow or imposing NI on dividends
which would have been quite unfair on businesses like mine which pay
their directors (me in our case) a proper market salary and pay
dividends out of true profits.

--
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

Tony Bryer wrote:

Screw the small one who has no intention of growing. Those who are
retaining profits to grow their businesses and/or strengthen their
balance sheets are less or not affected. IMO what he did was much more
sensible than the alternatives of removing the 0% band which would have
hurt small companies that want to grow or imposing NI on dividends

I think that is a red herring they would like you to believe... but like
most of these things does not stand up to scrutiny.

The 0% band probably made for good sound bites, but was never an
incentive for a small business to invest. It was only ever of any use
for extracting profits. Especially if you were a small sole trader - you
could incorporate and then get 10K out of the business free of
corporation tax.

When you think about it, you only pay CT on profits. Profits are what
are left _after_ all expenses have been paid for. Hence all investment
for growth is already fully tax deductible for a business - so saying
that there is a 0% band for the first 10K as an incentive to growth is
nonsense. This suggests one of two things: either GB does not have a
clue how businesses actually work, or it was part of a bigger plan to
herd businesses into incorporation for whatever reason. The first is
possible perhaps - not sure if he has ever run a business - but seems
unlikely since he is supposed to be pretty sharp. Which kind of leaves
the second as the more likely option.

which would have been quite unfair on businesses like mine which pay
their directors (me in our case) a proper market salary and pay
dividends out of true profits.

Granted the 19% move is far less damaging than a good number of the
options that could have been introduced, perhaps not surprising as there
will be an election soon ;-) There is always the possibility of more to
come however! In reality it is just a patch to fix the problem he caused
himself with the introduction of the 0% band.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Grunff wrote:

Tell me about it - the 19% flat on dividends is not looking nice at all.


Only for businesses with profits under 50K - so yet again he is
playing screw the small guy...


How does that work out? (I don't do our taxes, or pretend to understand
most of it - it just sounded bad).

I don't fully understand how all of it will work (as I expect neither do
the IR yet - details usually dribble out over the weeks after the budget
in various IR## notices).

The basic impact seems to be if you have profits of under 50K and
declare a dividend, there will be an extra 19% corporation tax to pay to
bring your total CT bill upto the figure you would have paid if CT had
been levied on the whole distribution at the 19% level. It effectively
nullifies out the benefit of the 0% band.

They have not yet made clear exactly what happens when you retain
profits for future years, or what happens if you say declare a dividend
larger than your actual profit for one year, using reserves from past
years and so on. Needless to say yet more red tape.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Tony wrote:

S660 will work - unfortunately. Be prepared to be stuffed. The first case
comes up soon but it is widely reckoned to go to the revenue - not fair, but
legal.

Not convinced they will make it stick. They only have one case in the
past to rely on, and that was for a very different circumstance. Their
argument seems to be based on the hypothesis that owning shares in a
business is an automatic right to income. In their one previous case
they were dealing with an odd situation involving preference shares that
did not carry any of the usual rights. Trying to apply that case law to
family firms owning "ordinary" shares which carry a whole package of
rights - but no automatic right to income - would seem to be stretching
a point. To try and back date this warped view of the world six years
and apply the legislation retrospectively (with penalties), when at no
time in the past have they given any indication that they may try this
interpretation, and all of the accounting profession were also unaware
that this line of thought might exist, seems to be taking the p***!

I guess we might find out soon when the case gets heard...

Having said that if they fail to make S660 stick there is nothing to
stop the introducing primary legislation to implement it in a way it
will work (rather than recycling decades old legislation). At least then
they would not be able to make it retrospective.

The tax on dividends has been brought in partly because of the abject
failure of IR35. If you consider yourself inside IR35 then Mr. Brown is
happy, if you have managed to place yourself outside then you'll get stuffed
by this.

Not convinced the IR view this new legislation as a replacement for IR35
- after all they did not repeal that. It seems that IR591 is just a
patch for the balls up they made with the 0% band.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:00:01 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

Having said that if they fail to make S660 stick there is nothing to
stop the introducing primary legislation to implement it in a way it
will work (rather than recycling decades old legislation). At least then
they would not be able to make it retrospective.

They won't be doing that this year with an election in the offing,
they would be seen to be stuffing too many voters. I see one of the
major papers was announcing an October 2004 election on its front page
this morning - could be the case I think.

I think the wheels are coming off the Labour bandwagon now and they
know they would be risking it to go thru another budget, or even
pre-budget announcement.

Not convinced the IR view this new legislation as a replacement for IR35
- after all they did not repeal that. It seems that IR591 is just a
patch for the balls up they made with the 0% band.

I think IR35 will be quietly forgotten about. After all, S660 has been
on the statute books since 1936 and successive governments had not
seen fit to repeal it.

Governments don't repeal their own failing legislation - they tinker
with it to try and make it work, or stick it in a backwater hoping it
will die of its own accord.

PoP

---
If you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk. I'll
probably still ignore you but at least I'll get the
message.....

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:36:36 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

Granted the 19% move is far less damaging than a good number of the
options that could have been introduced, perhaps not surprising as there
will be an election soon ;-) There is always the possibility of more to
come however! In reality it is just a patch to fix the problem he caused
himself with the introduction of the 0% band.

I agree. I think that given a chance Labour will increase that 19% in
successive budgets, and I wouldn't even bet on the Tories leaving it
alone!

I just wish they'd do away with NI and complicated taxation and lump
it all into one simple calculation. Whatever you earn 60% of it is to
be paid to government, and 80% if you earn over a certain threshold
(insert your own numbers). No fiddly little allowances to tinker with.

PoP

---
If you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk. I'll
probably still ignore you but at least I'll get the
message.....

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:19:25 +0000, "Andrew Heggie"
wrote:

On 19 Mar 2004 20:08:44 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

"Andrew Heggie" writes:
On 16 Mar 2004 17:39:36 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Why not just run Knoppix on a diskless PC?

What tasks could such a pc perform?

Obviously, one would have to configure application specific stuff and
blow a CD with it on, but otherwise whatever you like.

OK I'll be a bit more specific, with a laptop 133Mhz pentium 1 pc
running Knoppix, with a ide conversion to a flash card memory, is
there any fax receiving software available. The intent being to view
any faxes via a network.

AJH

You could see whether you could get GFAX to run with this. That's a
front end for Hylafax etc.

What the performance will be like I don't know. Like most things, I
suspect that having plenty of memory will help



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 20 Mar 2004 13:43:08 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Political suicide. Can you imagine the headlines if it were made
obvious that the base rate of taxation in this country is actually
44%?

I'm not so sure about that, though it would certainly take a very bold
party to go down that route.

The important thing to most people is what's left in their pay packet
when the necessary deductions (or additions) are made. If this change
were to become tax-neutral for most people I'm sure it would be
readily accepted. Plus government could shave costs of collection
considerably if the whole tax system was overhauled to make it
simpler.

However I don't think it is going to happen anytime soon. Politicians
are generally cowards and I think even Thatcher would have baulked at
this idea.

PoP

---
If you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk. I'll
probably still ignore you but at least I'll get the
message.....

PoP wrote:

I think IR35 will be quietly forgotten about. After all, S660 has been
on the statute books since 1936 and successive governments had not
seen fit to repeal it.

I have a feeling they may wish to forget about it - but all of the
accounting firms springing up with "no win no fee" deals to claim back
any monies paid under IR35, might force them to live with it for a bit
longer ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , Bob Eager
writes

He has gone very quiet on the whole IP address issue....beaten!

I think he's suffering from a fatal case of cranio-rectal inversion.

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
news
In article , Bob Eager
writes

He has gone very quiet on the whole IP address issue....beaten!

I think he's suffering from a fatal case of cranio-rectal inversion.

Our troll is at it again.

IMM wrote wih gay abandon:


Our troll is at it again.




So we see...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Our troll is at it again.

So we see...

And another joins in.

"IMM" wrote in message
...
And another joins in.
You should be on stage IMM, the first one outta town.

"chuffed_2_bits" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

And another joins in.

You should be on stage IMM, the first one outta town.

And yet another. He even says outta.

In message , IMM
writes

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 07:51:19 +0000, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:

In message , Dave Plowman
writes
In article ,
Nick Brooks wrote:

No, I haven't tried therapy, what's it like?

*Very* ineffective, I'd say.

I think I won't draw my wife's attention to this thread ;-)

(www.bacp.co.uk - she's listed in there somewhere!)

Visions of IMM running a small hotel in Torquay.....

Take not of the site, you need it.

That almost sounds biblical

Not the faintest idea what he's trying to say, but it must be profound

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 07:51:19 +0000, "dave @ stejonda"
wrote:

In message , Dave Plowman
writes
In article ,
Nick Brooks wrote:

No, I haven't tried therapy, what's it like?

*Very* ineffective, I'd say.

I think I won't draw my wife's attention to this thread ;-)

(www.bacp.co.uk - she's listed in there somewhere!)

Visions of IMM running a small hotel in Torquay.....

Take not of the site, you need it.

That almost sounds biblical

Not the faintest idea what he's trying to say, but it must be profound

Very profound Maxie.

In message , IMM
writes

Visions of IMM running a small hotel in Torquay.....

Take not of the site, you need it.

That almost sounds biblical

Not the faintest idea what he's trying to say, but it must be profound

Very profound Maxie.

And true
--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

Visions of IMM running a small hotel in Torquay.....

Take not of the site, you need it.

That almost sounds biblical

Not the faintest idea what he's trying to say, but it must be profound

Very profound Maxie.

And true

And very profound Maxie.