DWP lost case on work programme legality but are appealing

[speedfreek]

Import taxes would work, also a tax on outsourced jobs, there is 2 problems tho.

 

The first is companies will lobby the government threatening to base elsewhere etc. and the gov cave in.

The second is taxing imports inheritly will bump inflation.

 

Have you heard the term in sourcing/shoring?

 

If you set up an out sourced dept in a foreign country or have a foreign office you can import workers to the UK and pay no Employer tax or NI for a set period!

 

It's a nice little tax (not paying any) earner.

 

As an employee all you see on your pay slip is Employee Income and NI tax payments. As a contractor under PAYE I also had to pay Employers Income tax. If you have one look at your pay slip- and then double your employee Income tax that is the tax the employer has to pay on top of what you pay.

 

If I import a worker for 6-12 months (as long as no UK person applies for/wants the job) I as an employer do not have to pay this.

 

In 2000 the IT industry tied unsuccessfully to get his law changed as we were seeing management (well all) positions advertised for buttons. See rule about UK applications. Even if you did apply for these as feck we were desperate agencies and HR made the conditions of applying so impossible YOU HAD NO CHANCE of meeting them.

 

£5 p/h must have 20 year exp in something so out dated for a senior management position!

 

In 20007/8 all of the top ten law firms in the city started expanding their overseas offices with had English speaking support staff. Mainly Singapore and Malaysia. They then tried to make redundant all their English staff or move them on to reduced hours thus forcing them to move on.

 

The plan rotate foreign support staff to the UK and thus pay zero tax on them.

 

Outsorcing was just a way to get a pool of folks for inshoring!

 

When you hear the line "we need to attract the best talent from abroad" usually followed by because the UK produces ****e!

 

Read the above and wonder are we that bad? In short no but they are cheaper for them so...

[dyfed]

Hmm, perhaps I didnt make it quite clear enough that I was referring only to the UK economy. ..

 

It was a global problem and not one caused by Labour. I also seem to remember banks having to be bailed out for trillions.

EU counties lying about their finance so they could join the euro.

Also when the Torys were in opposition they voted against cuts in spending.

 

So to blame this whole thing on Labour is kinda wrong me thinks. Its much deeper than that.

[adridude]

It was a global problem and not one caused by Labour. I also seem to remember banks having to be bailed out for trillions.

EU counties lying about their finance so they could join the euro.

Also when the Torys were in opposition they voted against cuts in spending.

 

So to blame this whole thing on Labour is kinda wrong me thinks. Its much deeper than that.

 

I personally feel that if a bank needs to get pulled out of the red whilst still paying their upper execs stupid bonuses that they should be pulled out of privatisation and publicly run will full transparency when it comes to their books.

[san_d]

Tories, Liebors, what's the difference? They're all in the pockets of Goldmann Sachs.

[adridude]

Tories, Liebors, what's the difference? They're all in the pockets of Goldmann Sachs.

 

I second that

[worried33]

Tories, Liebors, what's the difference? They're all in the pockets of Goldmann Sachs.

 

True.

 

democracy is fake in my view, its just an illusion given to people they have choice. even evident that the lib dems dropped most of their policies very quickly once in power.

[adridude]

What would it take for a democratic re-vote? ALl I know (from my limited knowledge) is that 150000 signitures is enough for parliament to call to debate a matter.

 

What does it take to review the powers that be? I mean I don't quite still understand after all these years how the oxymoron 'LIberal Democrats' could exist:

 

Per description:

 

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives

 

Liberal democracy is a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism.

 

So what they are saying is you are free to say what you want about how you want you life governed if you arent disabled, unemployed or otherwise paying the middle to upper tax rates?

 

Last time I checked, the lower (common) tax band of employee's were the majority. Are they taking majority by number of people, or number of pennies in the purse?

[sadone]

Imo there hasn't been any democracy in Britain for a looooooong time now and under Cameron's reign the UK's run more like a dictatorship then anything else.

 

I'm sure some charity a while back got enough signatures to require parliament to debate the issues, but 'oh what a surprise' it was still ignored.

[adridude]

I've got a sorry feeling that these reforms will result in horrid riots yet again. When will Cameron & Co realise that affecting the little people (i.e. the working and unemployed) WILL en in revolt. EVen myself as a working businessman with a company (and one which is about to close) is threatened with such changes. With these reforms all new entrepreneurs HAVE to get at least £ 100 / week into the company as per their 'MIF' (minimum income floor) for working tax credits. DO they actually realise that after spending £1000, you get only £150 back profit if lucky, and even that has to be offset against loans and salaries.

 

There's no way that any company can afford to pay a Director £100 a week off the first bat, yet alone after the first year (first year is their target). As far as I know from experience, it takes new entrepreneurs a good year or two to find their feet in business AND running a business, so setting a deadline like that is terrible.

 

Because of this threat, I've put away a good few £1000 to cover this incase of emergencies. If the budget is low and I can afford things, I'll have to plough into my income and 'hire my own company' to make up the income. I think that doigng this is terrible, and I have much better things to do with the money like invest it in things which might bring the company forwaard.

[Crazy Diamond]

Hmm, perhaps I didnt make it quite clear enough that I was referring only to the UK economy. ..

 

Oh no, I got that all right... but considering the whole world went into meltdown and that the UK was way behind in time the list of countries that got hit, I'm just wondering how that ties up with the supposed meltdown presided over by Labour at the time. Considering that prior to said meltdown, Labour had actually got us out of the previous Tory-made and very much national recession and that the economy was recovering, and that even after said meltdown, by the time Cameron took over the UK was on way to recovery, I wonder as to where you get your information from? Sure, the media can say this or that... but the numbers prove otherwise. Worth a thought, maybe, instead of running the same line over and over again, even when not relevant to the current conversation?

[adridude]

Looking at countries like Denmark and Norway. Despite having the odd hiccup they've always been stable. Despite their taxes being stupidly high, import taxes are phenomenal, the people are generally happy, they're well looked after by the government etc... It just goes to show if you ssteer the taxes back to the pople that it does make people happy. Unfortunately here, they're steered into governments pockets. A classic example is Camerons £12,500 bottle of wine he had at the last conference. I mean really? I wince at paying £10 for a bottle, let alone 12k!

 

*edit* maybe I should sign on to benefits and pay for that bottle on someone elses money. Maybe I might feel as guilt free as Cameron does sending other peoples money.

[citizenB]

A classic example is Camerons £12,500 bottle of wine he had at the last conference. I mean really? I wince at paying £10 for a bottle, let alone 12k!

 

What on earth was that for ? His own personal use (in which case the tax payer shouldnt have paid for it) or for a function (when they should be looking to reduce costs for entertaining)

[Conniff]

Sounds to me like someones been reading the comic newspapers.

[sadone]

This is where Google is your friend.

 

"Hard to swallow: Taxpayers forced to stump up £13,000 for David Cameron's wine-tasting tour"

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-wine-tasting-tour-costs-1293961

[estellyn]

This is where Google is your freind.

 

"Hard to swallow: Taxpayers forced to stump up £13,000 for David Cameron's wine-tasting tour"

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-wine-tasting-tour-costs-1293961

 

What they've done is calculate how much the trip cost per hour, and the £13,000 is the per hour cost of 90 minutes at a winery, not the cost of a bottle of wine, and I doubt that not going to a winery would have decreased the cost of the trip at all. Heck, I despise Cameron, but a bad article is a bad article.

[sadone]

Well one way or another the little **** was ripping taxpayers off imo.

[worried33]

Looking at countries like Denmark and Norway. Despite having the odd hiccup they've always been stable. Despite their taxes being stupidly high, import taxes are phenomenal, the people are generally happy, they're well looked after by the government etc... It just goes to show if you ssteer the taxes back to the pople that it does make people happy. Unfortunately here, they're steered into governments pockets. A classic example is Camerons £12,500 bottle of wine he had at the last conference. I mean really? I wince at paying £10 for a bottle, let alone 12k!

 

*edit* maybe I should sign on to benefits and pay for that bottle on someone elses money. Maybe I might feel as guilt free as Cameron does sending other peoples money.

 

I agree, here we have too much greed, alot of taxes are diverted to private wealth and asu such people arent seeing the full benefits of a tax and spend policy. We also have too many people who are self serving and look at taxes as a "value for money" decision. eg many only see refuse collection as what they get out of their council tax, they ignore money spent on social care, policing, charities etc. because they dont consider it to help them personally.

[SWLABR9]

Alone in European countries, we haven't had a revolution. Our aristocrats are still with us, mainly as landowners, and huge amounts of tax goes to them. That was fine so long as there was a lot of money about so we could have some too. Now there isn't, and they still get their huge amounts while we get increasingly less. I note that foodbanks are now not only being attended by the unemployed, but by the employed who are so badly paid they can't afford food. This is not because the money isn't there, it's because it's being creamed off by the very, very rich, people whose names we'll never know.

Edited February 20, 2013 by ims21

[adridude]

After all of the recent cutbacks over the last few years, the upping of VAT and other taxes, we still lost our AAA credit rating.

 

Just goes to show that the BILLIONS more than the government got out of us obviously wasnt directed at the countries deficit... On that note and in light of this, I'm refusing to pay the extra 8.5% that the council will raise my yearly CT by. I was notified about this alst month about this coming April. But then again, it also looks like people on benefits, the disabled and volunteers also have to pay 8.5% of their CT benefit to the council.

 

In regards to where the money is at, we have an inverse pyramid here. At the bottom those being the poorest, at the top those being the richest... THis same trait can be used to map where the money is as well as the speed at which it travels in each direction.

 

i.e. Upwards, moves quicker at a higher volume as it nears the top, and downwards, slows down and gets considerably less nearer the bottom.

[Nystagmite]

But then again, it also looks like people on benefits, the disabled and volunteers also have to pay 8.5% of their CT benefit to the council.

 

Using what money from where exactly?

[Conniff]

After all of the recent cutbacks over the last few years, the upping of VAT and other taxes, we still lost our AAA credit rating.

 

Just goes to show that the BILLIONS more than the government got out of us obviously wasnt directed at the countries deficit... On that note and in light of this, I'm refusing to pay the extra 8.5% that the council will raise my yearly CT by. I was notified about this alst month about this coming April. But then again, it also looks like people on benefits, the disabled and volunteers also have to pay 8.5% of their CT benefit to the council.

 

In regards to where the money is at, we have an inverse pyramid here. At the bottom those being the poorest, at the top those being the richest... THis same trait can be used to map where the money is as well as the speed at which it travels in each direction.

 

i.e. Upwards, moves quicker at a higher volume as it nears the top, and downwards, slows down and gets considerably less nearer the bottom.

 

 

Refusal to pay council tax is a criminal offence punishable by a prison sentence.

[adridude]

By the looks of the letter (I'll scan it in when I get home), they will get a bill as per normal every april, and instead of having a zero balance as it's all covered by benefits, it's going to be 8.5% of the total bill.

 

I'm not sure as to where, but I assume that there will be a lot of attachment orders (or whatever they're called) issued to JSA etc... I'm jsut going to pay whatever the bill is -8.5%. I'm not paying for their cutbacks, not when they've totally f****d up the Uk's credit rating despite 'fixing the economy with austerity'...

 

lol 2 weeks ago it was 'we've nearly halved the deficit and we're ahead of schedule and now they've lost a credit rating. Talk about being caught RED HANDED and publicly.. It'll be interesting to see what the excuses are.

 

The new budgets will be interesting, hopefully someone will throw a bunch of rotten eggs at him and his cruddy old budget briefcase :-/

[adridude]

Dispute and refusal are two different things ;-) It's being disputed as it was worded something like as follows:

 

'As the government have cut funding by 8.5% for council tax benefit relief, we have decided to pass this on to people paying CT in the borough'.

 

ATM I'm not being payed CT benefit any more, so according to their wording I'm not included. None the less, they did anyway... I have a letter stating they are going to do otherwise... i'm merely following their 'guidelines' which they sent me

[worried33]

After all of the recent cutbacks over the last few years, the upping of VAT and other taxes, we still lost our AAA credit rating.

 

Just goes to show that the BILLIONS more than the government got out of us obviously wasnt directed at the countries deficit... On that note and in light of this, I'm refusing to pay the extra 8.5% that the council will raise my yearly CT by. I was notified about this alst month about this coming April. But then again, it also looks like people on benefits, the disabled and volunteers also have to pay 8.5% of their CT benefit to the council.

 

In regards to where the money is at, we have an inverse pyramid here. At the bottom those being the poorest, at the top those being the richest... THis same trait can be used to map where the money is as well as the speed at which it travels in each direction.

 

i.e. Upwards, moves quicker at a higher volume as it nears the top, and downwards, slows down and gets considerably less nearer the bottom.

 

This is good news for us, it has lost osborne credibility.

 

IF the press are good at their job they need to now show him up as he specifically stated the cuts were to protect the rating.

[worried33]

Dispute and refusal are two different things ;-) It's being disputed as it was worded something like as follows:

 

'As the government have cut funding by 8.5% for council tax benefit relief, we have decided to pass this on to people paying CT in the borough'.

 

ATM I'm not being payed CT benefit any more, so according to their wording I'm not included. None the less, they did anyway... I have a letter stating they are going to do otherwise... i'm merely following their 'guidelines' which they sent me

 

My question is why have your council only got a 8.5% cut and mine have a 19% cut?