Firm closing

[WTF]

i supppse somebody could be an employee, owner, director, shareholder simultaneously depending on the paperwork. 

[Gladys]

22 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Yes but don’t worry the fact checking Police require anyone who challenges DBC to produce evidential facts of everything they post as banning or suspending anti DBC posters hasn’t had an impact so now we have to go through a downward spiral of discrediting absolutely every post made instead. It’s genuinely sad. Gladys is more than welcome to spend £2 accessing the information on companies registry via the link already provided. 

But you have used the link through your employment to confirm that haven't you?  I am sure they didn't mind the £2 cost?

I have fact checked against the MR report (because that is what you were referring to) and they describe her as an employee and nothing in the interview implies she is an owner.  In fact she refers to the owners in the third person as making the decision in the recording. 

It is nothing to do with DBC, but you increasingly post misunderstood fact as gospel and become very aggressive when challenged.

We can all get stuff wrong and do, but you have to recognise when you get it wrong and move on, rather than doggedly stick to your erroneous postings.  If you could be relied upon to either get it right first time or admit a misinterpretation, no one would be arsed double checking.  

 

[offshoremanxman]

7 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But you have used the link through your employment to confirm that haven't you?  I am sure they didn't mind the £2 cost?

I have fact checked against the MR report (because that is what you were referring to) and they describe her as an employee and nothing in the interview implies she is an owner.  In fact she refers to the owners in the third person as making the decision in the recording. 

It is nothing to do with DBC, but you increasingly post misunderstood fact as gospel and become very aggressive when challenged.

We can all get stuff wrong and do, but you have to recognise when you get it wrong and move on, rather than doggedly stick to your erroneous postings.  If you could be relied upon to either get it right first time or admit a misinterpretation, no one would be arsed double checking.  

I don’t mind the cost as it’s my business so I can spend £2 however I wish. Why don’t you stump up your two quid if picking holes in absolutely everything i say like some sort of deranged pendant is so important to you? Then you will discover that the lady is a shareholder and director of the business in question. 

[KERED]

42 minutes ago, Gladys said:

 

I have fact checked against the MR report (because that is what you were referring to) and they describe her as an employee and nothing in the interview implies she is an owner.  In fact she refers to the owners in the third person as making the decision in the recording. 

 

 

Spot on, Glad!  (As usual)

[Happier diner]

3 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

Ok Einstein, what have I said that's incorrect?

All of it is incorrect. You say twice that the second job is taxed at a higher rate. Its not. Your gross earnings are taxed. Regardless of how many jobs you have.

You may temporarily pay a higher rate but this is all refunded.

If you think about it though it only applies in year 1. In year 2 you would have got your rebate and enjoy the full joy of two salaries.

No offence intended.

[Asthehills]

The last couple of pages of this are hilarious.

The lady in the Pascoes interview is very easily shown to be an owner/director/shareholder at Pascoes with vey simple checks.

Its factual, there for all to see.

Now.  The MR report is their typical rubbish but a poster comes along and clearly states she is owner etc but then another long established poster comes along and argues with him, and people start liking posts and commenting that someone is spot on as usual, despite them being completely wrong in what they are saying 🙄😂

@offshoremanxmanis completely correct.  She is a lovely lady and has run the place for many years.

@Gladyslisten to the interview back on the basis that she is the owner (since she is) and you will see it’s just typical sloppy reporting by MR.

 

[Gladys]

4 hours ago, Asthehills said:

The last couple of pages of this are hilarious.

The lady in the Pascoes interview is very easily shown to be an owner/director/shareholder at Pascoes with vey simple checks.

Its factual, there for all to see.

Now.  The MR report is their typical rubbish but a poster comes along and clearly states she is owner etc but then another long established poster comes along and argues with him, and people start liking posts and commenting that someone is spot on as usual, despite them being completely wrong in what they are saying 🙄😂

@offshoremanxmanis completely correct.  She is a lovely lady and has run the place for many years.

@Gladyslisten to the interview back on the basis that she is the owner (since she is) and you will see it’s just typical sloppy reporting by MR.

 

As I said, all I had to fact check was the MR report and she was not referred to as an owner.  I am not going to pay for documents from the Registry to prove a point.   

However, having said that I apologise to @offshoremanxman if he was right, this time.   

[A fool and his money.....]

6 hours ago, Happier diner said:

All of it is incorrect. You say twice that the second job is taxed at a higher rate. Its not. Your gross earnings are taxed. Regardless of how many jobs you have.

You may temporarily pay a higher rate but this is all refunded.

If you think about it though it only applies in year 1. In year 2 you would have got your rebate and enjoy the full joy of two salaries.

No offence intended.

None taken. Non intended either when I say what you've written is misleading nonsense.

Most employed people on the island are taxed by PAYE. From what I have seen in the past, many people who pay tax in this way don't really understand how income tax is calculated, they don't really need to, it's taken off them before they have any choice. What you have just written is extremely misleading to these people.

Take a simple example. Suppose Dave is a single fella who works full time and earns £20K per year. He's been doing this perhaps for a couple of years. Further suppose that the personal allowance is £14K and the 10% band is £6K. In that case Dave pays £600 in income tax assuming he doesn't claim relief for mortgage interest, pension etc. That is he effectively pays 3% income tax.

Now, winter 2022 comes around and Dave can no longer afford to live, so he takes a second job, part time in the evenings for which he will be paid £5K per year. The extra income tax he will pay by taking this job per year is £1000 which is 20% of £5000.

Now, technically both you, with your first year, second year, rebates blah blah blah, and the Government with their talk of tax codes and all that jazz are correct. But look at it from Dave's point of view (he's PAYE remember so doesn't necessarily understand the technicalities). For years he's worked one job and paid £600 income tax (3%). He still works that job with the same wage but now works a second job and pays a total of £1600 income tax. From his point of view and to all intents and purposes he's being taxed at higher rate on his second job that he is on his first, there is no need for any further complication or technical explanation.

It's a bit like the London Underground map. For years they'd tried to map the complex tunnels beneath the city including all the geographic detail that surrounds them. The results were very confusing, misleading and difficult to understand  and the result was that nobody really knew where they were going. It wasn't until the 1930's that Harry Beck realised that the confusion was caused by needless detail - the trains ran underground in tunnels, it really doesn't matter if two stations are joined by a meandering tunnel passing beneath a famous landmark enroute - as far as an unfamiliar passenger is concerned it's completely adequate and much, much simpler to join the two stations with a simple straight line on the map, they'll still arrive at the same place. 

An updated version of the same map is still in use today.

A worker thinking he will be taxed at a higher rate on a second job is like a passenger looking at this map with a straight line between two stations. You and the Government are like two people trying to tell him that the straight line is not technically correct and to educate him on the corners in the tunnel and notable surface landmarks it passes beneath - for Christ sake just let him get on the train, he'll arrive in the same place regardless.

[genericUserName]

People on close to minimum wage should pay no tax. People on well above average salaries should pay considerably more.

[CallMeCurious]

There is one area where Government is super efficient. Inventing new taxes and charges. When was the last time they abolished any taxe, fee or charge on anything but a temporary measure?

 

[offshoremanxman]

1 hour ago, CallMeCurious said:

There is one area where Government is super efficient. Inventing new taxes and charges. When was the last time they abolished any taxe, fee or charge on anything but a temporary measure?

But the income tax system really hasn’t changed here for about 40 years. You can’t really blame a system that hasn’t changed much at all for being the main reason why people suddenly aren’t taking out second jobs now. 

[Passing Time]

31 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

But the income tax system really hasn’t changed here for about 40 years. You can’t really blame a system that hasn’t changed much at all for being the main reason why people suddenly aren’t taking out second jobs now. 

Spoken like a true government shill

[A fool and his money.....]

53 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

But the income tax system really hasn’t changed here for about 40 years. You can’t really blame a system that hasn’t changed much at all for being the main reason why people suddenly aren’t taking out second jobs now. 

The elephant in the room here is that with all our wonderful years of economic growth, near 100% employment and supposedly generous tax regime, it should be possible for someone to house themselves, heat and eat their home with one job. 

The fact that government's response to the many people currently unable to do so is to issue a completely unnecessary, misleading statement about the taxation of second jobs is staggering if you ask me.

[woolley]

On 2/13/2023 at 6:02 PM, Gladys said:

The issue is it isn’t PAYE it is ITIP,  which is an instalment plan rather than a settling of your liability as you go along.  Overall, you won't pay more tax but have to wait for a refund,  so I understand the issue.  However, surely a call to the tax office will sort it? 

 

On 2/13/2023 at 6:07 PM, kevster said:

surely ITIP is the same  as PAYE - Pay As You Earn. So each weekly/monthly payment should add up to what you owe at the year end

 

On 2/13/2023 at 6:17 PM, Happier diner said:

Yes it is the same thing.

 

On 2/13/2023 at 6:18 PM, Gladys said:

That's the point, PAYE is a calculation of tax on each wage/salary payment.  I worked in the UK for 16 years and never submitted a tax return.  I didn't have to.  Any benefits in kind were given a value and my monthly gross was adjusted and taxed. If I had a second employment, I guess it was notified to HMRC straightaway and any unused tax allowance would be applied.  I don't know the ins and outs, there are differences which is why we have to submit an annual tax return for a tally up. 

There certainly are differences. ITIP is not the same as PAYE. Gladys is partially onto it. PAYE is based on your liability at the specific point in the tax year, whereas ITIP is an instalment payment for a week/month in isolation only. Sounds similar, but they throw up differing effects. Maybe it's best explained by taking a typical scenario that comes up quite often for one reason or another. Say you didn't work and had no taxable income from April to December, but then you start work on 1st January earning £3k a month.

If you were in the UK under PAYE, the employer would calculate your liability each pay day using your code based on the week/month number in the full tax year from the previous April. So, if (for round figures) the tax free allowance was £12k, you would pay no tax until the next April because your pay for the year remains within the allowance. No tax, so no rebate required. You would start paying tax with your April pay in the next tax year.

Facing the same scenario in the IOM under ITIP, the employer would still calculate your liabiilty using your code, but the system is not sufficiently sophisticated to take the portion of the tax year before your employment commenced into account. It doesn't work on week/month numbers. It is simply your monthly earnings less your free pay for that month (1/12 of your yearly allowance) and the balance is subject to tax. Consequently, despite not reaching your tax free allowance for the year, you do pay tax on your weekly/monthly earnings as though you had worked the whole year earning the same amount throughout. So in our hypothetical example of £12k allowance, and £3k monthly earnings, £1k would be tax free, then (say) £500 @ 10% and the rest @ 20%. When you fill in your tax form and are assessed, you will get the whole lot back.

From the next April the effects of the two systems are largely the same (except for the different rates and allowances of course.)

It's interesting as an employer when you are running both systems together.

 

[woolley]

16 hours ago, Happier diner said:

My missus had 3 jobs and one self employed income in 20/21 so we are familiar with the issue. 

Well done! My hat is off to you. You should tell her to seek further work opportunities in order to keep you in the manner to which you have become accustomed.