Off-topic/chat thread

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

I find it interesting that you advocate austerity while also advocating the widespread use of tax loopholes (which, if I remember your post in the other thread correctly allows earnings of something like £70-80kpa without paying tax).

Contracting is an interesting example. I am a freelance consultant and I operate exactly within the tax provisions that HMRC have set down. There is no other way for me to pay tax. The controversey around IR35, HMRC, Contractors and tax avoidance is in relation to disguised employment. That is where a person works as a contractor for the same company in a BAU role for a number of years but the company and the individual avoid tax as they are not truly a freelance consultant. If I were to analyse what income I generate for HMRC as a limited company in comparison to what I would generate as a permanent employee then HMRC is significantly better off with me operating as a limited company. I generate VAT and pay corporation tax far in excess of what income tax I would have paid as a permanent employee. I manage to reduce my personal tax bill but my company pays an eye watering amount in tax every year.

Fysh wrote: »

The thing about austerity and government spending being "out of control" is that tax avoidance on the part of the wealthy and high earners is a huge problem. To claim that the best solution is to push the impact of cuts onto the lowest earners while at the same time advocating the exact behaviour that at a corporate level contributes hugely to the problem is, er, interesting to say the least. (Yes, I know, it's perfectly legal and all the rest of it. But it contributes directly to the problem that you claim needs to be resolved, so perhaps it's worth considering that the Blessed Free Market's approach to tax regulation has directly contributed to this problem).

I agree that corporate tax is an issue but the wealthy in this country pay a huge amount of tax. Why should an individual by virtue of the fact earn more money (which they generally have worked extremely hard for) have to pay a larger percentage of their income in tax. They already pay more so why should it be progressively more? Again this is an ideological issue. I dont think the lower income earners are bearing the brunt of the recession anymore than the wealthy. Middle and higher income earners have to pay 40% and 50% of their income (depending on earnings) in tax. When will people be happy? Are we going to resort to measures like in France where we are taking 75%-80% of peoples earnings over a certain level? What motivation is there for anyone to work harder or create wealth if you have to hand over the majority of it to the government to support an inefficent public sector or a group of people who dont work? We live in society which provides free healthcare, free education and subsidised 3rd level education. People have the opportunity to increase their standard of living if they wish to.

Fysh wrote: »

There's a fair amount of evidence to be seen in recent UK history that privatising services on which the public is dependent (eg energy services)
leads to higher prices for those services. When this is combined with a slack, cackhanded approach to privatisation which does not require the owners of the privatised services to be domiciled in the UK, the result is a net drain on the economy which benefits no bugger. And it's not like this is just something that happened in the past (under the Tories), Cameron's lot have been talking about future UK road infrastructure being developed on a toll system with Chinese ownership. Because nothing will help the UK economy compete with China quite like having road tolls being paid directly to Chinese owners.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I dont think privatisation is neccessarly the way forward and before the governement privatises anything then they absolutley have to consider the issues you mention.

Fysh wrote: »

You keep saying that Ed Balls isn't a credible alternative, as though George Osborne and his repeatedly missed economic targets is any more credible. The fact is, as it stands neither party has any real current credibility; however, one party is actively attacking almost all the public infrastructure that serves those on lower incomes under the guise of cuts but more realistically in the pursuit of privatising as much as they can because ideologically they believe privatisation to be best (which is perhaps unsurprising since they tend to be the party of the rich who would like to remain rich).

This comes back to the earlier point about the lesser of two evils. I'm not a big fan of Gideon or the Tories. I just think that they are a better altenative to Labour at the moment. I think if Ed Miliband was given his marching orders and David was brought back in then we would see a much more credible alternative to the tories than currently exists, an alternative that wouldnt put the UK economy at risk, that would be pro business and maybe target the cuts in a better way. But at the moment there really is no choice in my opinion if its a choice between spending or cutting which is what seems to be on the table.

Fysh

Playboy wrote: »

Contracting is an interesting example. I am a freelance consultant and I operate exactly within the tax provisions that HMRC have set down. There is no other way for me to pay tax. The controversey around IR35, HMRC, Contractors and tax avoidance is in relation to disguised employment. That is where a person works as a contractor for the same company in a BAU role for a number of years but the company and the individual avoid tax as they are not truly a freelance consultant. If I were to analyse what income I generate for HMRC as a limited company in comparison to what I would generate as a permanent employee then HMRC is significantly better off with me operating as a limited company. I generate VAT and pay corporation tax far in excess of what income tax I would have paid as a permanent employee. I manage to reduce my personal tax bill but my company pays an eye watering amount in tax every year.




I agree that corporate tax is an issue but the wealthy in this country pay a huge amount of tax. Why should an individual by virtue of the fact earn more money (which they generally have worked extremely hard for) have to pay a larger percentage of their income in tax. They already pay more so why should it be progressively more? Again this is an ideological issue. I dont think the lower income earners are bearing the brunt of the recession anymore than the wealthy. Middle and higher income earners have to pay 40% and 50% of their income (depending on earnings) in tax. When will people be happy? Are we going to resort to measures like in France where we are taking 75%-80% of peoples earnings over a certain level? What motivation is there for anyone to work harder or create wealth if you have to hand over the majority of it to the government to support an inefficent public sector or a group of people who dont work? We live in society which provides free healthcare, free education and subsidised 3rd level education. People have the opportunity to increase their standard of living if they wish to.



I'm not disagreeing with you. I dont think privatisation is neccessarly the way forward and before the governement privatises anything then they absolutley have to consider the issues you mention.



This comes back to the earlier point about the lesser of two evils. I'm not a big fan of Gideon or the Tories. I just think that they are a better altenative to Labour at the moment. I think if Ed Miliband was given his marching orders and David was brought back in then we would see a much more credible alternative to the tories than currently exists, an alternative that wouldnt put the UK economy at risk, that would be pro business and maybe target the cuts in a better way. But at the moment there really is no choice in my opinion if its a choice between spending or cutting which is what seems to be on the table.

The thing about taxing people who earn eye-watering amounts of money is that the impact on their quality of life of £foo is by definition less than the impact of the same £foo on the quality of life of someone who's living close to the poverty line. Since this conversation is all about the problems in funding core services (and let's not pretend that the Tory agenda about welfare abuse is relevant here, that's outright ideological warfare on Cameron's part), then why on earth would you suggest not taxing those who have earned the most?

It's also worth noting that as far as I'm concerned, if Cameron wants me to take his talk of cuts seriously then he needs to seriously overhaul military spending in this country (as with the US, just about the only way you can justify pissing arbitrary amounts of money away in this country is by claiming it's going to military investment, eg the ongoing farce that is the Eurofighter project), seriously slash allowances on MP expenses (for example, scrap the second home allowance and have any MPs who claim the need for work residence live in council-flat-standard accommodation), and take Whitehall procurement to task. I work for a university but what I've seen of government IT procurement in this country makes me want to beat my head against the wall - I'm fairly sure my cat could do a better job of project tendering.

In the absence of these kinds of moves, austerity to me looks like the usual Tory attitude that the poor have clearly made a choice to be poor (similar to the American Republican idea that anyone who gets sick without health insurance clearly decided to do so). I don't see any social benefit in pushing for greater privatisation of schools, reduction in public library services, public hospital closures, or forced privatisation of the NHS or other national infrastructure. Defending Cameron's austerity plan is effectively praising these stupidly short-termist measures, which is why I can't do so.

frag420

So should I assume the next beers are going to be in The house of Lords then??

enda1

frag420 wrote: »

So should I assume the next beers are going to be in The house of Lords then??

Normally I'd get involved in these conversations, but 1 on 1 is fair.

When was the last boards beers anyway? Are we due another?
I should really make my first, I've never been. Always quite busy these weekends...

Fysh

enda1 wrote: »

Normally I'd get involved in these conversations, but 1 on 1 is fair.

When was the last boards beers anyway? Are we due another?
I should really make my first, I've never been. Always quite busy these weekends...

We're about due one soon alright, I've been a bit slack to organise them.

In an unsubtle effort to unb0rk the conversation from the devastating political mire into which it has currently been landed by my contributions the actions of certain unnamed third parties, I'm going to suggest we start discussing possible venues. I do like the idea of heading to Broadway Market & the London Fields Brewery, but I reckon we should wait until the weather's a bit better.

I don't think we've been to the realms of SW at all recently, though, so we could try Shepherd's Bush/Hammersmith sometime.

frag420

While ye are deciding here is something to brighten up your day...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/45-things-every-visitor-to-london-needs-to-know

enda1

Fysh wrote: »

We're about due one soon alright, I've been a bit slack to organise them.

In an unsubtle effort to unb0rk the conversation from the devastating political mire into which it has currently been landed by my contributions the actions of certain unnamed third parties, I'm going to suggest we start discussing possible venues. I do like the idea of heading to Broadway Market & the London Fields Brewery, but I reckon we should wait until the weather's a bit better.

I don't think we've been to the realms of SW at all recently, though, so we could try Shepherd's Bush/Hammersmith sometime.

Very true!

Going to Hammersmith to do a Sipsmith Gin Factory tour. Should be fun.
Never been out in Hammersmith before so that could be good.

Fysh

If you want something to pass the time, you could do worse for three and a half minutes of entertainment than the video for Bad Motherlover by Biting Elbows (possibly NSFW due to violence). It's like a beautiful mashup of Crank, District 13 and every FPS game ever made.

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

The thing about taxing people who earn eye-watering amounts of money is that the impact on their quality of life of £foo is by definition less than the impact of the same £foo on the quality of life of someone who's living close to the poverty line. Since this conversation is all about the problems in funding core services (and let's not pretend that the Tory agenda about welfare abuse is relevant here, that's outright ideological warfare on Cameron's part), then why on earth would you suggest not taxing those who have earned the most?

I'm not suggesting that we do not tax the people who earn the most. People who earn the most already pay the most tax. CAnt remember the exact stats bandied about last year but wasnt it something like the top 1 percent of earners pay about 25% of all the income tax bill for the country. These people generally have earned the right to a better standard of living. Why does that give people who dont earn as much the right to erode that standard of living only because of the fact they earn more. You cant punish the rich for being rich. They would already pay more tax if there were a flat rate by virtue of the fact they earn more. We have a progressive system that takes a higher percentage of their earnings just because they are rich so you could say they pay more than their fair share. Why should we increase that burden further? People have to be responsible for their standard of living. I could quit my job in the morning and sit on the dole and stop the 12 -14 hour days and the horrible commute every morning. Should I then expect that in order to fund my choice that the government can just keep taxing the wealthy to keep me in benefits? I'm not saying that everyone on benefits make a choice to be there or equally that people on low incomes make a choice to earn a low income but there has to be some personal responsibility for where people find themselves on the earnings ladder. If we leave the disabled, the pensioners and the wealthy through inheritance out of the equation then what we are left we is a workforce who have it within their power to improve their standard of living by working harder, making smarter choices, availing of education etc. We cant just say "oh well I earn a low income so I dont have any responsibilty to pay for the running of the state. lets just keep taxing the rich". The people at the higher end of the income spectrum have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labour. If we penalise them excessively then we will have issues with tax avoidance and tax evasion or we will drive them out of the country like what is happening in France at the moment. We need to be able to motivate people to work harder and earn more because it benefits all of society, not just in tax revenue but as a consequence of spending the higher earnings within the economy.

Fysh wrote: »

It's also worth noting that as far as I'm concerned, if Cameron wants me to take his talk of cuts seriously then he needs to seriously overhaul military spending in this country (as with the US, just about the only way you can justify pissing arbitrary amounts of money away in this country is by claiming it's going to military investment, eg the ongoing farce that is the Eurofighter project), seriously slash allowances on MP expenses (for example, scrap the second home allowance and have any MPs who claim the need for work residence live in council-flat-standard accommodation), and take Whitehall procurement to task. I work for a university but what I've seen of government IT procurement in this country makes me want to beat my head against the wall - I'm fairly sure my cat could do a better job of project tendering.

On military spending I dont disagree but I also am admit to not having a well informed opinion. Have the tories increased military spending post Labour?

In respect to IT procurement/tendering the government are covered under European procurement regulation call OJEU. Procurement in the public sector is a real pain in the a**... I know because I have done it in the past. If I remember correctly though the government have introduced a scheme whereby a certain percentage of the spend has to go to homegrown SME's. This could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perpspective. Obviously we want to stimulate homegrown businesses but we also want to make sure that government departments are spending their budgets efficiently. Homegrown SME'S are likely to be more expensive especially in terms of IT than leverging agreements with larger international organisations.

Fysh wrote: »

In the absence of these kinds of moves, austerity to me looks like the usual Tory attitude that the poor have clearly made a choice to be poor (similar to the American Republican idea that anyone who gets sick without health insurance clearly decided to do so). I don't see any social benefit in pushing for greater privatisation of schools, reduction in public library services, public hospital closures, or forced privatisation of the NHS or other national infrastructure. Defending Cameron's austerity plan is effectively praising these stupidly short-termist measures, which is why I can't do so.

Well where does it stop? If we dont assign any responsibility to people for their situation then where do we end up? Did the wealthy not work hard to be wealthy? Of course all poor people didnt choose to be poor but their are plenty of people who are less well off who work but have zero ambition to work harder for a promotion or to earn more money, they are simply happy with their lot. I would contend that no government subsidy is an entitlement. The governement can afford what it can afford and if you are a healthy able bodied individual then you shouldnt be relying on the government to subsidise your life for ever more. I dont get a penny from the government, I dont ever expect to get a penny from the government. I have to make hard decisions about where I live, what I can afford, how many kids I can have in the knowledge that I have to pay for any of the choices i make. I dont see why people in low income families or people who are unemployed think they can have a council house for life at other peoples expense and they can have large families without worrying about how to pay for them without child benefit of some degree.

Look we arent going to agree, we obviously see these issues from different perspectives. I dont think there are right answers, just beliefs about how we think society should be organised and administered. I'm no tory but I do believe strongly in personal responsibility. I'm a socialist to the extent that I believe nobody should be homeless, hungry, cold and without access to healthcare. Anyone who happens to be on benefit or a very low income should be given every opportunity to improve their situation through hardwork and education. I really hope that in England we could reintroduce no fees again but with the caveat that it is only for course/degrees which are going to benefit the economy i.e. science, maths, engineering etc and not degrees which are education for the sake of education. I have no problem with people doing a degree in whatever they want but dont expect people to subsidise your interest which will likely will never secure you a job. Its madness that we have a shortage of skills within the economy but we arent subsiding people to undertake those degrees which we as an economy need.

enda1

Fysh and Playboy,

STOP

This intervention has been brought to you by the good people of London.

Fysh

In an effort to promote Not Talking About Politics Any More (Because Look What I've Done To This Thread), I give you the following:



Taken from here

Playboy

It's all in good spirits!!

enda1

Talking about good spirits, I'm going to do the Sipsmith Factory Tour this evening. Has anyone done it before? Many free cocktails?

Playboy

Havent even heard of it!

Fysh

enda1 wrote: »

Talking about good spirits, I'm going to do the Sipsmith Factory Tour this evening. Has anyone done it before? Many free cocktails?

I haven't done it, but a quick look at the site makes it sound very interesting - let us know how you get on

afatbollix

enda1 wrote: »

Talking about good spirits, I'm going to do the Sipsmith Factory Tour this evening. Has anyone done it before? Many free cocktails?

I hate you. I love Sipsmith. They make some awesome booze. Deffo booking a tour.
Tell us how good it was when your done.

enda1

afatbollix wrote: »

I hate you. I love Sipsmith. They make some awesome booze. Deffo booking a tour.
Tell us how good it was when your done.

Fortuitously, the server went down in work at 4 just there so I left. Grabbed two bottles of Young's Double Chocolate Stout for the train journey!

Hopefully I don't spoil my taste buds for the tour. I'm particularly looking forward to their vermouth I must say. Mmm

I'll report back on the tour.

enda1

So for the tour:

£12 per person. We'd a group of seven, and there were probably a further 25-30 people there.

On arrival you get a GnT. Served with lime. Vodka Tonic for those who don't like gin.

Then there's a talk and explanation of the vodka process followed by a tiny tasting of neat vodka. Then he talks about the gin process followed by a tiny taste of gin.

They make three other drinks which are tasted in turn too, a minute amount of each.

The guy giving the talk/tour was a smarmy Eton-esque lad who I swear was an actor because of his over-exuberance and manner.

All in all for twelve quid, it wasn't really worth it and I find the whole thing left a bitter (zing!) taste in my mouth. They buy in 96% proof alcohol and thin this with water before distilling in order to make their vodka. So they don't brew the alcohol nor really distil it... bizarre. For the gin, they take the same base spirit (96% from barley) and macerate the botanicals in it for 12 hours @ 60deg before performing what appeared to be a single distillation process.

The whole thing stank of marketing and a way to put the word London on the product which was mostly made elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, the product is nice but if I'm honest with you, gimme a Bombay Sapphire any day.

silvervixen84

Some of these are quite interesting:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/32-things-you-might-not-know-about-london

tibor

Free 3 month trial of the National Art Pass here.

http://www.artfund.org/telegraph

For three months, you can enjoy:

FREE entry to over 200 charging art galleries, museums and historic properties across the UK
50% off major exhibitions at venues including the British Museum, National Gallery, National Portrait Gallery, Tate and the V&A

Just in time for Bowie at the V&A. Nice.

LadyMayBelle

tibor wrote: »

Free 3 month trial of the National Art Pass here.

http://www.artfund.org/telegraph



Just in time for Bowie at the V&A. Nice.

That's just perfect! Want to see that exhibition and was holding off booing tickets till tomorrow, good timing!

jonnyfingers

Hi guys, anyone on here working in IT Consulting in London? Just been offered a few jobs, one is a very lucrative offer to join a massive company as an MES Consultant. Basically I'd meet with clients who need our services, access their requirements and then project manage the operation while the developers create the application and get it up and running on site. The major downside is there may be a lot of travel to client sites around the UK, but as this is a new venture for the company they can't guarantee where the clients will be or how long I'd be on site in any given week. Has anyone any experience in working in a similar role who might be able to shed light on the amount of time spent in and out of the office?

Also is anyone contracting as an IT Consultant and if so how do you find it?

Playboy

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Hi guys, anyone on here working in IT Consulting in London? Just been offered a few jobs, one is a very lucrative offer to join a massive company as an MES Consultant. Basically I'd meet with clients who need our services, access their requirements and then project manage the operation while the developers create the application and get it up and running on site. The major downside is there may be a lot of travel to client sites around the UK, but as this is a new venture for the company they can't guarantee where the clients will be or how long I'd be on site in any given week. Has anyone any experience in working in a similar role who might be able to shed light on the amount of time spent in and out of the office?

Also is anyone contracting as an IT Consultant and if so how do you find it?

There is another thread on this forum specifically for contracting. I wrote a detailed post near the end on how it works over here. Haven't done a similar role so can't offer any advice on that unfortunately.

jonnyfingers

Playboy wrote: »

There is another thread on this forum specifically for contracting. I wrote a detailed post near the end on how it works over here. Haven't done a similar role so can't offer any advice on that unfortunately.

Cheers, I'll check that thread out.

ballsymchugh

somebody asked a while back about what towns outside london are like for nightlife. i'll just leave this here...

Fysh

ballsymchugh

that place used to be a regular feature on street wars for the fights outside every weekend. kinda miss that show now.

Playboy

ballsymchugh wrote: »

that place used to be a regular feature on street wars for the fights outside every weekend. kinda miss that show now.

Where is that place? And are you organising beers there?

ballsymchugh

Playboy wrote: »

Where is that place? And are you organising beers there?

i think i'll pass. it's about a mile from where i work. the staff wanted the Christmas night out to end up there a few years ago, but i got refused entry due to the wrong type of footwear! they have standards don't you know!

frag420

Quick question Re Oyster Card,

I was told there was a yearly travel pass available that is tax deductable so if I get a yearly pass for Zones 1-2 it is significantly cheaper?

Is this true? Does anyone have any info?

cheers

frAg