miga

Or, from another angle, you can probably get a lot more of that 1.2bln back than of the 70bn, given how complex the avoidance tactics are in one case compared to the other. The recovery revenue per worker would be the real measure of whether those numbers make sense.

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > including GP services Now that would be a very useful level of cover.

Second recommendations for Seville, Granada, Cordoba and Cadiz. There's a beach half way between Cadiz and Gibraltar, near Tarifa, called Bolonia, which is wide, sandy, clean and untouristed, with the bonuses of Roman ruins/museum (Baelo Claudia) directly behind it, a great chiringuito on the beach and even a few cows grazing nearby in lieu of a play farm. And you can see Africa, obvs.

Definitely - as do pre-existing conditions, certain illnesses, treatments etc.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > corporations and individuals not paying tax yet > his own family are guilty. I get what you're saying, but that's an association fallacy. Just because he's posh, his dad is a tax avoider etc. doesn't invalidate his point. Tony Blair or Gordon Brown didn't have particularly posh backgrounds, but these holes in the system flourished under their rule too. It's not a Tory or Labour thing, it's a money and ethics thing.

> I agree that the law needs to be tightened. To > imply that anything which is lawful is necessarily > moral however, is quite different. Exactly - if most people behaved (and not just with regards to tax) on the principle that your only obligation is to act legally to the (sometimes twisted) letter of the law, this society would be awful. Similarly, not every breach of law is immoral in my view. But, as I said earlier, morality is relative, as shown on this thread. For lots of people "legal = moral = ethical". Things that lay people do, like putting their money in ISAs, or pensions, to save on tax are to the spirit of the law - people are deliberately encouraged as a policy to save, for retirement or otherwise. Also - if the plumber or handyman wants cash, you can't infer that they're avoiding tax (they may not be obliged to pay VAT, they may want to avoid the inconvenience of bank fees, credit cards etc.).

I've had it on and off through work (choosing cash instead of insurance along the way if possible). Makes seeing specialists a much quicker process, but you still have to go through GP. Private GP services not covered, IME. Pregnancy or pregnancy related stuff not covered (missus had to argue about physio treatment following birth), IME. But - I've also had to wait for 3 months to see a man about a dodgy ankle on the NHS, whereas privately it would have been a week. I'd take it if it was gratis, not sure if it's worth a few grand a year for the whole family otherwise.

In my view, it boils down to the difference between what's legal and what's moral. I actually think there are many who could be wildly inventive about their taxes and save a packet, but for moral reasons choose not to do so. As morality is relative, or indeed absent as a factor in decision making in some cases, there are also many who merely do the most efficient legal thing possible. So a game of cat and mouse ensues.

Albeit with fewer Poms ;-)

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not some of the piffle above. Not good debate. > Come back when you have thought properly about it > with an objective view. And will you come back when your definition of ironic isn't from an Alanis Morisette song?

Quids.....I would hit like on that 100 if there was a like feature on the forum. Like! But slavery is serious business, that's for sure.

Right on.

Now I'm being a pedant, but I remember I ended up drawing out the changes at the time - 2014 - (because I felt burnt for buying a few months previous to the changes), and the stamp duty was equal to the previous regime at the upper bounds of each of the previous ranges (i.e at 249,999, 499,999 etc.). Not that it matters to the general theme of stamp duty being a strong argument against moving house.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is an irony that there is a glut of > extensions whilst not enough housing, in > particular affordable housing. Actually - I think the two go hand in hand. The affordability of housing affects even people in housing already. As prices jump, the gap between the steps on the ladder increases. So going from a 200k place to a 400k place, becomes 400k to 800k place or whatever (pedants accept the principle and don't worry about the actual numbers, pls., I get there are holes in the example). This is on top of stamp duties, removal costs, hours and hours of dull admin and general upheaval. On the other hand, remortgaging and using theoretical equity for works gets people the space they want. On top of which, I'm not sure good quality extensions etc. necessarily make a lot of, if any, money - it's a lot of hassle when equity gains in this crazy market are so good.

Bam! Exactly. Except it's the people that change areas, and the house price madness has been going for some time, and people who can afford more expensive houses usually also have more disposable income, creating a need for "nice" things in previously unexciting areas, and on it goes until the music stops...

I think *Bob* may have been "flippin da script" on DF as young people maybe used to say in the 90s. Allegedly.

It's fashion - the inner city life, or some version of it, is desirable, whereas the suburbs are seen as not only boring but d?mod?. Apparently, at some point in the past, moving out somewhere like Bromley from somewhere like Peckham or Catford was seen as social progress. We're all products of our time.

True. Shoreditch is becoming more and more part of the "central business district". I went up to Dalston to see a gig a couple of months ago for the first time in years and was surprised to find the streetscape much unchanged despite the new blocks of apartments etc. These things take time.

Ha! But to an extent that's just (most of real/normal) London - it's not sanitised, not even after decades of all kinds of social change. Even Chelsea has (rather better arranged) piles of plastic refuse bags on the street outside businesses stinkily awaiting collection of an evening. It ain't Geneva, that's for sure.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not exactly free though. We all pay into it. Hence the quotes.

There was a whole previous thread on this. From what I'd read at the time, all these different league tables had NHS roughly comparable in service levels to other Western European countries with universal healthcare. The fact that it's "free" doesn't make it unique either.

That's one of the reasons I said it's debatable that they'll "win". There's still a need for black cabs to ferry people around zone 1, minicabs for airport transfers etc. And of course the apps aren't rocket science, there are already similar ones. I was more commenting on the idea that if Uber does become a monopoly, they'll do what monopolies do. But I think that's unlikely.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Uber drivers just like black cab drivers get to > decide when and how much they want to work. Its > not at all the same as zero hour contracts. Zackly. I think when people use the zero hours thing against Uber, it's in the context of a wider trend towards more insecure work. I'm not sure how that's applicable here, it's not like people are leaving formerly secure unionised factory jobs in their droves to drive Uber cars.... ...the shaky nature of a lot of people's source of income is a good discussion to have, I just don't see how it fits into the Uber picture.

Here's another good thing about Uber. If you do have a problem, you report it, you get some credit, and the company addresses the problem with the driver and follows up quickly with feedback. Black cab drivers are obliged to take you to any "reasonable" destination within a certain distance of central London - so every time they refuse to drive you coz it's not on their way home, they're breaking the rules. But unless you have your wits about you, you won't have made note of their details to make a complaint, and if and when you do....yeah...

rodneybewes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > miga Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > all prices and benefits down to the lowest > > common > > > denominator and we'll end up with thousands > of > > > people with no holiday or benefits chasing > the > > > same number of people. > > > > What holidays and benefits do black cab/minicab > > drivers get? > > > > I get the tax thing - but I think the Uber > model > > is great. > Black cabs get none, only a scant few cab firms > do. > > The ease of uber is great. The economic model > leaves nothing but Uber as it sets all drivers up > against each other in a race to the bottom and the > whole thing is predicated on not paying the same > tax rates as other taxi models. It's interesting > that the disgust of a few years ago about zero > hours contracts has dwindled away to pretty much > nothing. Give me convenience or give me death. As I said, I get the company tax thing, they ought to pay it, but if they did that wouldn't sink them or invalidate the model. And it's always been one driver against another (or late on a Saturday in Soho, one passenger against another), this is just a more transparent system given it's based on proximity as measured by GPS. Also I disagree that if Uber "win" (debatable) they'll keep at being competitive - they'll up prices when there's no competition. As far as the technology goes though, everything is going in an Uber direction, it makes sense given we all have GPS now. Yeah, give me convenience or give me death, that's what we value as a society, capitalism is the worst ism, except for all the other isms we've tried before.