Jump to content

Lack of maintenance


Tom766

Featured Posts

12 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

And the fuel for the car? with no fuel duty??

Plenty of knock off, but you are being obtuse.

 

A day I sent a 56 year old out to repair a washer.  He is sat on his tool box replacing a timer say, and feels his hair crinkle on his neck.

Turning round, he sees the lady of the house draped in the kitchen doorway - naked -.  She had answered the door in a nighty.

 

Being a gent, he rose slowly, read his job sheet and informed the lady that as the job was under guarantee and he had a heavy mornings workload, her affections would not be required, thank you.

 

Not at all an uncommon an occurrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tracy D'arth said:

Plenty of knock off, but you are being obtuse.

 

A day I sent a 56 year old out to repair a washer.  He is sat on his tool box replacing a timer say, and feels his hair crinkle on his neck.

Turning round, he sees the lady of the house draped in the kitchen doorway - naked -.  She had answered the door in a nighty.

 

Being a gent, he rose slowly, read his job sheet and informed the lady that as the job was under guarantee and he had a heavy mornings workload, her affections would not be required, thank you.

 

Not at all an uncommon an occurrence.

So anecdotal then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So anecdotal then.

Well, yes, but even I had to cope with the innuendo and offers. I had an expensive new coat left in the van one day by a customer with a very explicit note on what I was to wear underneath it next time I called.  It went to the charity shop (probably stolen anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Well, yes, but even I had to cope with the innuendo and offers. I had an expensive new coat left in the van one day by a customer with a very explicit note on what I was to wear underneath it next time I called.  It went to the charity shop (probably stolen anyway).

Well if we are talking tax fiddles, I can tell you of many of my fellow truck drivers (when I was driving trucks) who made a whole lot more money (cash in hand, tax free) selling pallets than they did in driver's wages, using the company vehicles to transport them. Anecdotes may be interesting (or they may not) but don't prove much.

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Well if we are talking tax fiddles, I can tell you of many of my fellow truck drivers (when I was driving trucks) who made a whole lot more money (cash in hand, tax free) selling pallets than they did in driver's wages, using the company vehicles to transport them. Anecdotes may be interesting (or they may not) but don't prove much.

 

Years when I was a coach driver it was actually assumed that you would have ways/means of making extra money, that's how the company justified the low wages!   But these days, especially with so many folk embracing the cashless society and increasing amounts of trading online,  I do wonder how much gets by HMRC, I'm not convinced that it's significant.   Anyone who has been cooking the books will have been burned by the SEISS conditions that work out your grant based on declared income - that must have made a lot of self employed people think again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Neil2 said:

.  

 

What concerns me most is that if you think of all the hostile fast bowlers England have produced over the years, I don't think there's a single one that was educated privately.

I'm sure that many batsmen who have faced Stuart Broad would consider him hostile. Derek Pringle, perhaps slightly less so.

Edited by Athy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/08/2021 at 21:09, Ronaldo47 said:

It could be effectively over 100% for one year,  I think 1949 or 1950, because for the very wealthy there was a tax on capital on top of the 95% income tax, levied on the interest from savings and other unearned income.  

Dug out my source, a "News of the World" almanac  for 1951. The year was actually 1948, and the relevant passage is as follows:

 

+++++++++++++++++++++

 

Capital Levy

 

In 1948 a "special contribution" was levied on all those who had an income of over £2,000 of which £250 came from investments. The top rate was 10/-  in the £.  A person receiving an investment income of £20,000 thus had to pay in income tax, surtax and special.contribution £24,900.

 

++++++++++++++++

 

A footnote to the then-current 1950-51 tax year assessments notes :

 

++++++++++++++++

A married man with three children earning £1 million would suffer tax, at present-day rates, to the extent of £971,064. 5s. 0d., or 97.1 per cent. In order to achieve a net income of £1 million the same man would find it necessary to earn £39,842,570. 

++++++++++++++++++

 

Of course, most of the working population would not have been affected by these swingeing tax rates, but you can understand why there were so many UK tax exiles from the 1940's until the easing of higher-rate taxes in the 1970's, especially as the 1950-51 death duty on estates of more than £1 million was 80%.

Edited by Ronaldo47
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.