Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

This is me,

Every word true!

The tax offices have been cut to the bone with staff levels. The workers have very low moral being told what to do. You try talking to a tax inspector, you can only get as far as a helpline that never knows the answer to your question. Inspectors will not talk to Accountants let alone the public. I would think there are not many staff to tackle tax evasion. With R.T.I (Real Time information) starting in April, which means an online submission has to be made for every pay period whether that be weekly, four weekly or monthly, rather than the present ''once a year '' return . The requirements go on and on. The tax office systems are a shambles (been told by accountants) This will keep them busy as the systems have been practice run by the big boy accountants and its a mess put politely.

don't entirely agree ..... add general incompetence, too many (expensive) offices none of whom talk to each when they should, and yes, you're quite right, it is almost impossible even for an accountant to talk to anyone in any authority and with any knowledge

there's plenty of similar in local gov't too

Honest, this is not a rant. But foods cooked and wife's out.


------------


Hays,

Engage your brain.

Philpotts could be described as a psychopath, a plausible liar, or a chancer. It seems to me that there are many of those in all the political parties of this country at the moment. The percentage seems to have increase with the recent intake to Parliament..

Philpotts’s appears to be a “psychopath”. Probably, his “psychopathy” was a product of his “predispositions” and the environment “upbringing” and whether there was a Welfare Benefit System operating, or not, he would probably ended outside the law. Perhaps, he might have become a successful business man, think of Robert Maxwell, or perhaps, your fellow traveller Murdoch.

There are problems with the welfare benefits, but the majority of the money which was obtained by Philpotts was paid for upkeep and care of the children. (Rightly, or wrongly.)
He got control of the money and may have abused that situation, but the money could hardly be paid into the hands of three year old children.

Even psychopaths in their own “charming” ways can be seen as adequate parents. Would you like to have a fascist state where the children can be removed from the parents and the parents subjugated to forced sterilisation?

There are many problems in the “Social” services and “Support” services and there is a need for system of management of “social” problems, but a blanket decision made on the back of obviously “aberrant” behaviour is not likely to be the correct one. Cutting back on financing without thought, is likely in some areas to lead to upturn in crime etc..


Hard cases can lead to the making of bad laws.

Osborne is being deceitful.

Agree cynic, the tax office has passed most of the work to accountants. They just process the Accounts/returns and I bet hardly looking at them to get the output sent out. What a world years ago a tax man could talk to you over the phone, they are not allowed to now. Really the accountants are employees of the tax office as they are being directed or more told you will do ----. The accountants institutions have let them down and in blunt terms should have told the Tax authorities to get stuffed of the extra burden of work they have offloaded and shovelled on accountants.

Don't you ever switch off about the government , are you sure your wife has not left you. :-))

Fred
They are called sociopaths these days.

The important bit as regards benefits is not the manslaughter, but the 17 kids and three adults on benefits.

That's a thought, she may have run off with DC . lol

Osbourne has made countless speeches on how hes going to get hard with none tax payers but what is really the truth.............silch hes done nothing.

He has to his credit got a special crack team set up mind..............yes all FIVE of them....I kid you not have made little impression on the collection of tax for the exchequer that should go to balancing the deficit and then making some impression on the debt level.

Having worked for both the Inland Revenue and DHSS as a civil Servant im still in touch as freinds with colleagues (in fact go for a pint once a month)and can confirm every word spoken by DC is accurate in fact doesnt go far enough.

I cant spill any more beans as when you start and leave you have to sign the official secrets act, but I can tell you this moral is at its lowest ever and productivity is per the same.

Now if Osbourne put as much effort and deception as per welfare into recovering taxes this country wouldnt be in the state its in now.

Was the recovery of taxes better when labour were in power goldfinger?
I'm not putting the Cons against labour. Agree with what you say above. I'm surprised they want to go out to socialise, they must have their heads in their boots. Just waiting for the day they retire.

George Osborne – The Odious Toff Who’s Not Fit To Run A Tuck Shop

Posted on April 3, 2013 by johnny void | 167 Comments


Dribbling little posh boy George Osborne was cut loose from nanny’s apron strings and allowed out of his inheritance funded parlour yesterday to unleash a stream of lies and abuse directed at those on low incomes.

The heir to the Baronetcy of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon made the astonishing claim that unemployment benefits of £71 a week are generous, showing just how out of touch him and his deluded party truly are. After this months benefit changes, by the time claimants have paid their bedroom tax, council tax and essential bills, many will be left with nothing at all to buy food.

Even if Gideon were telling the truth yesterday, and he wasn’t, his vile claim that 90% of working people will be better off as a result of this months social security slashing reveals little more than his utter contempt for those not born with a silver spoon rammed down their delicate throats. What the Chancellor is really admitting is that ten percent of working families will be worse off due to his Government, and those families are already the poorest in the country.

This ten percent were amongst the silent crowd of workers he hectored at as he visited a supermarket distribution depot yesterday. Many of those workers will be victims of this months benefits chaos, which applies to those in and out of work alike. And these same workers will see tax credits and housing benefits reduced in real terms year on year,wiping out any trivial gains from the raising of the tax threshold. It is little wonder that his audience remained silent and contemptuous throughout, no doubt having been threatened with the sack should they raise their voices.

Even his attempt to divide those on low incomes by talking about claimants on £26,000 a year was met with stony faces. Low paid workers in the South of England are only too aware that some claimants are forced to pay huge sums to landlords due to the chronic lack of social housing. They know this because many of them are paying the same sky high rents and are as just as dependent on fast disappearing housing benefits as any out of work benefit claimant.

In fact Osborne’s only answer to low paid workers is to brag that at least he’s destroying the lives of unemployed, unwell or disabled people as well. Picking on those least able to defend themselves seems to be a competition sport to the Bullingdon bullies in the cabinet.

But it is clearly not just those out of work that are in the Chancellor’s firing line. In truth Gideon couldn’t really care less whether those on low incomes are working – if you are poor you are scum according to the trust fund kid with a four million pound fortune.

It matters not at all that those people he has condemned to poverty are the ones who empty his bins, clean his daddy’s offices and will wipe his swollen rancid arse when he gets old. After all these aren’t real people to Gideon. In his fevered mind they are merely a servile class of plebs, only existing to do the work the rich are too lazy to even consider, like making their own beds or scrubbing their own shit from their toilets.

Gideon, David and Nick live in such pampered privilege it is unlikely they’ve ever had a sincere conservation with anyone who isn’t rich. And it is this effete bubble of privilege that has allowed the most inept fools possibly in history to fluke their way into government. This bubble means Gideon and David have little idea how talentless they are, as their bribed back-slapping city boy chums cheer their every move. Osborne got his job because the business owning class hailed him as a financial genius, yet any chinless fool could claim to be an economic expert to these clowns. All you need to say is tax the rich less and fuck the poor and the jeering toads will fete you as a hero of the upper classes.

Yet Osborne’s shambolic austerity drive has destroyed the economy and he is more determined than ever to make the poorest pay for his failure. He is not fit to run a tuck shop and yet he has been let loose on the nation’s finances. The man is utterly incompetent, but he is very, very posh. To most Tories that means he has a divine right to rule.


http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/george-osborne-the-odious-toff/

Hays,

Precisely, the relevance of a minority of "odd" cases is little in the discussion of overall benefits. George Osborne and Cameron are being deceitful and making false associations in their arguments.

The question of having multitudes of offspring and the individuals responsibility exercised towards them is a different problem. But simply sweeping away necessary support systems is unlikely to be rewarding and may result the development of a criminal class.

Of course the right wing of tory may introduce a Fascist state. But you had better be careful which groups they scapegoat.



====


Which one of my 5 wives are you taking so lightly.

God help DC with anyone of them, especially the youngest.

GF.

Sorry, DC is captaining a submarine,

Or was that capsizing a submarine.



8-)

DC they yes they were not much better but better,. Dont forget like Ive said previously the rich have got richer and the middle poorer.

Funny I always think how a tax demand falls on the doorstep on time but if you are due a repayment it takes months and you cannot fine the IR. I did think this government was going to cut red tape for business and now every month a business man has to prepare or pass to his accountant REAL TIME INFORMATION (compulsory)
otherwise more fines (yes even hours worked), all in order to meet our governments demands. I read last week half the businesses are not even prepared.

I do agree goldfinger that the government have got things wrong but to me the Labour plan of spend, spend is not the answer. We have seen the consequences with some of our neighbouring countries. Yes if there was someone better I would vote them.

Ignore the rumours: David Cameron and George Osborne stand or fall together




By Benedict BroganPoliticsLast updated: March 31st, 2013

520 CommentsComment on this article



Divorce is not on the cards

My colleague Paddy Hennessy has caused his usual trouble this morning by detailing the extent of backbench unhappiness with George Osborne. As Chancellor, George gets blamed for dud policies – the hit on stay-at-home mothers, for ex – while as elections supremo he is accused of bad political management. His anonymous critics say, in terms, that he is the source of all the party's woes. One is quoted as follows: “George must go. He might have helped push through gay marriage but in my constituency people are more angry about the removal of child benefit, a policy designed and implemented by a rich Chancellor in a safe seat with absolutely no idea how hard it is for ordinary folk. He has lost any political nose he may have had and is in danger of becoming a millstone round the Prime Minister’s neck.”

You may recall that before the Budget there was talk of a letter demanding his head going in to David Cameron if Mr Osborne failed to deliver… I forget. Paradise, or something. An overnight transformation of Tory fortunes. Actually, the Budget turned out to be rather clever in political terms. It may be open to all manner of criticisms for its macro choices (funny business with the BoE inflation target, doping of the housing market, and no hint of the big strategic decisions needed to recalibrate the size of the state), but it did the business for backbenchers by giving them things to brandish on the doorsteps. 'Do something', they clamoured, meaning 'save my seat', and he did: the Budget will help the Tory cause in 2015.

But it's made precious little difference to his standing in the parliamentary party. Like Dave, George is unpopular because over the years he has been unable to avoid giving the impression that being a backbencher is for life's losers. Consider that Tory quote. Take the class envy bit: who'd a thunk we'd reach a point in the Tory party where being well off was something to be hated for? The irony is that Mr Osborne carries his inherited privilege far more lightly than Dave. The point about the safe seat is more telling, but as Matthew Parris detailed yesterday, some of the leadership's most implacable critics are those who won't have to work too hard in 2015. Our anonymous MP also inexplicably pins gay marriage on George, when it was Dave who pushed for it.

Should we take it seriously? As displacement activity for attacks on Dave, yes. The recent attempts at forcing a challenge against the PM have come to nothing, so a new target is needed (by the way, I don't buy this idea that we now 'know' that 25 letters have gone in to Graham Brady. All the evidence points to him being as discreet as his predecessor. It may be true, but it's only a guess. Beware those who tell you they know otherwise). Mr Osborne is a good one. Hammering the join between PM and Chancellor is a way to force damage. It won't work, though. Why? There is no disagreement between them on economic policy, the central requirement for a change at the Treasury. They may at times differ on other policy areas, but they are united on the economy. Nor do any of the names suggested as replacements propose anything different. Changing Chancellors to do more of the same is, frankly, a turkey of an idea. The voters would laugh, and that would be that. True, in No10 it's been noticed that Mr Osborne's mojo is, shall we say, not quite what it was. But Mr Cameron knows that if Mr Osborne goes, he does too. And the Chancellor has known for years that he has no future without Mr Cameron's success. They remain inseparable. They stand or fall together. It is one of the Conservatives' great remaining strengths.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100209760/ignore-the-rumours-david-cameron-and-george-osborne-stand-or-fall-together/

Fred
We have had a fascist government from time to time. It is called Labour.

DC if your a trader rather than an investor you know you have to spend and take losses to make further gains in your portfolio. Its no diferent at government level.

Right off to watch spurs

Poor you :-))

Labour have never had a clue of how to create an environment that business can succeed in. Business is the engine that drives the economy. No benefits to society are created except by way of the wealth and success of businesses.