Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The problems begin when you hit six months. The courses they send you on actually are pretty good, but for me they were a bit of a waste of time because I had an excellent "outplacement consultant" paid for by Sony, who spruced up my CV and so on. I made a high rate of applications, and had a fair number of interviews, but it still took a year to get a job.

The real reason is ageism, of course. At 54 I am seen as too old to be working in the digital media industry where I've spent most of my life. I started to get a higher response rate once I modified my CV to eliminate all clues that I am over 40.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The real reason is ageism, of course. At 54 I am seen as too old to be working in the digital media industry where I've spent most of my life. I started to get a higher response rate once I modified my CV to eliminate all clues that I am over 40.

This is the real issue, I think. My father got quite down recently, because during job applications over the last five years (he's 58) his success rate has been abysmal, for jobs he's completely qualified for. To quote him 'Nobody wants you once you pass fifty, because there are other people ten years younger with suitable amounts of experience who aren't heading rapidly towards retirement'. And the closer you get to sixty, the worse it appears to get.

I ran into a 62 year old chap in Twickenham the other day on the riverfront also who said much the same thing again (physics/engineering graduate, lifetime spent programming and various other things).

This is an issue we as a society desperately need to address, because with everyone living longer and retirement age receding accordingly, it's only going to get worse.

 Ketara wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The real reason is ageism, of course. At 54 I am seen as too old to be working in the digital media industry where I've spent most of my life. I started to get a higher response rate once I modified my CV to eliminate all clues that I am over 40.

This is the real issue, I think. ....

It's certainly an issue, just not the only issue I'm afraid. Because of my job my family moves around the country frequently, necessitating my wife to regularly hop from job to job in a new area. Even though the Govt have sent me to a completely different part of the country there is no recognition of that fact for my wife, as far as they are concerned, she is voluntarily unemployed.
In areas, usually quite remote, and where jobs can be scarce, there is little sympathy for my wife, and she has frequently been treated poorly by a system seemingly setup to bully those seeking employment. This is not only our experience, but the experience of many of my colleagues partners. It's rare that actual real support or understanding is displayed, rather just a desire to fit a square peg into a round hole.
My wife has numerous qualifications and has retrained a number of times to suit different employment. She has always been a hard worker, and has never not found work of some sort or another, however those rare occasions where she has made a claim have been so unpleasant as to seemingly been designed that way to discourage a legitimate and perfectly acceptable claim.

Hmmmm another Tory MP with links to Investment funds in the Bahama's. I think they may be starting a trend...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37432666

 Whirlwind wrote:
Hmmmm another Tory MP with links to Investment funds in the Bahama's. I think they may be starting a trend...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37432666

Not in the least surprised.

For as long as I can remember, the Tories only ever protected their own, or lined their own pockets, or were always caught up in sleaze and corruption.

Party before country - that's the Tory motto.

And yet, for reasons I can never understand why, people keep voting for a Tory party that isn't even Conservative, and has not been for a long time...

I hope the see the day when the two zombie parties, Labour and Tory, are swept away, and this nation has new parties to address the challenge of the 21st century.

Former business woman worked at business!

I'm not quite sure what the shocking element is here?

 notprop wrote:
Former business woman worked at business!

I'm not quite sure what the shocking element is here?

It's perception. The Tories have long turned a blind eye to this, David Cameron being a famous example, and the fact that a Tory MP was part of this 'machinery' only confirms that the Tories are not, and have never been, serious about tackling off shore tax havens...

I mean, how could they be? They're not so stupid as to bite the hand that feeds them...

But ordinary people like me feel cheated, because if you owe them a penny, they'll come down on you like a ton of bricks.

One law for some, another law for everybody else...

Same law for everyone I believe.

You are as entitled to invest off shore as anyone.

Who's them?

 notprop wrote:
Same law for everyone I believe.

You are as entitled to invest off shore as anyone.

Who's them?

I'm more than happy to invest offshore, but first, I'll need expensive lawyers and accountants, then I'll need to recruit former MPs to do the lobbying for me, changing the rules so I pay less tax is always helpful, and when that's done, I'll bung the Tory party a million quid in return for a knighthood or peerage...

as for the Who's them bit, you probably seen the famous image that goes like this:

Cost of benefit fraud to the UK = 20 billion. Number of staff employed to claw back some of this money: 10,000

Cost of tax evasion to the UK = 100 billion. Number of staff employed to claw back money: 2 temps and a hamster called Derek

Yeah, I'm simplyfying things, but you get the general gist

I'll have you know Derek is twice the accountant you are.

 Ketara wrote:
I'll have you know Derek is twice the accountant you are.

Which, funnily enough, also means they're on the same level.

 Ketara wrote:
I'll have you know Derek is twice the accountant you are.

Probably

On a serious note, you know what I'm saying Ketara.

There's never any money to stop foodbanks, but bombing Arabs or need a new aircraft carrier? Bingo - here's a few billion.

Benefit fraud is seen as a mortal threat to the UK, but it's pitiful sums compared to tax evasion and avoidance, but the latter is treated with a shrug of the shoulders, whilst the former gets the Spanish Inquisition treatment.

I hate the double standards of this nation of ours...

Hardly a double standard, it's just easier to control expenditure than recovery. It is also one of the more obvious offenses against society as a whole.

If you've ever done a tax return its amazing that most people are honest (if they are). The system effectively leave you to it and accepts your calculation. It's pot luck if your checked or not. out of the three times I've had my returns checked I've received a refund (with interest!). Of course the flip side is they will feth you up f you are caught cheating.

HMRC employs in excess of 80,000 people from what I can tell, I'm sure more than 2 of them are checking taxes.

 notprop wrote:
Hardly a double standard, it's just easier to control expenditure than recovery. It is also one of the more obvious offenses against society as a whole.

If you've ever done a tax return its amazing that most people are honest (if they are). The system effectively leave you to it and accepts your calculation. It's pot luck if your checked or not. out of the three times I've had my returns checked I've received a refund (with interest!). Of course the flip side is they will feth you up f you are caught cheating.

HMRC employs in excess of 80,000 people from what I can tell, I'm sure more than 2 of them are checking taxes.

Tax returns ARE basically an honesty box. From what I understand, so long as you don't take the wet you can get away with a lot. They even help you not pay taxes! with various methods of deductions.

I have no problem with offshore funds and the like.

My business aim is to LTD company the gak out of my life..I'll take a one off 22 or so percent on my earnings in return for favourable schemes that will see me better off. I'll spend some of those saving on accountants to make sure I keep what I earn!!!

Indeed, some of the allowances available - Mileage/Fuel/Pension/subsistence/etc, really make a noticeable difference in monthly take home pay; many don't even know they can benefit from them. Not hard to sort yourself but an accountant does make things easier.

 notprop wrote:
Indeed, some of the allowances available - Mileage/Fuel/Pension/subsistence/etc, really make a noticeable difference in monthly take home pay; many don't even know they can benefit from them. Not hard to sort yourself but an accountant does make things easier.

The issue is that employees don't get these same level of benefits. A nurse; teacher or minimum wage clerical assistant has no way to access these types of tax benefit. Yes everyone could go self employed but that's not really practical as whole. Imagine if all the nurses and junior doctors went 100% self employed. The NHS would have a nightmare with even any attempt at consistency as the person you had yesterday might not be the one you have today who might not be the one you have tomorrow (hence why there can be a lot of anger at the tax system). This is compounded by the fact that the more money you have the more you can employ someone to look after that money and minimise the tax cost. There really needs to be a system where tax is paid on what you earn overall rather than what you get paid.

Imagine if ordinary workers were allowed to claim tax deductions for all their living costs, the same as companies, so you only paid income tax on your "profits".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Imagine if ordinary workers were allowed to claim tax deductions for all their living costs, the same as companies, so you only paid income tax on your "profits".

Well it would be fairer! But I doubt the government would get that much tax income. And I'm not really arguing for such an extreme change; just more fair. For example an employee going to work can't claim fuel costs for travelling to work, whereas a self employed person can. A self employed person can purchase a laptop that might only be used for the business 50% of the time and the rest for pleasure and hence can offset the cost against the business; tax relief and allowance etc even down to offsetting some of the mortgage payments if you work from home self employed. These things just aren't available to someone that is working for an organisation (and yet are still critical to the running of the economy).

I've made no secret of the fact that I'm anti-Conservative party, but as a democrat, I recognize that a proper conservative party is vital to a vibrant and fully functioning British democracy.

However, we get dodgy donors, dodgy Liam Fox, cash for honours, MPs on the take, unelected peers, Cameron packing the house of Lords with his mates cosying up to multi-national companies etc etc and it all adds up to unease and corruption as far as I'm concerned...

I wish the whole rotten system would come crashing down.

To be fair, Labour have been as equally as bad over the years, but my loathing will always be reserved for the Tories. Party first, country second.

A case in point is the recent EU referendum.

Did Cameron hold this referendum because as a democrat he was anxious that the British people should have their say on such a historically important issue?

Hell no! The British people's opinion was the last thing on his mind.

He did it to stave off rebellion in the Tory party and head off UKIP.

Party first, country second.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Party first, country second.

Yes unfortunately. The idea of a democracy is that it is by the people, for the people and yet we are so far removed from that it's scary. But then power corrupts.

Of course the human race has been down this path before many times and each time there has been only one outcome, a revolution of some form. If we continue on the same path I do not think it will be any different this time.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Imagine if ordinary workers were allowed to claim tax deductions for all their living costs, the same as companies, so you only paid income tax on your "profits".

Erm ..... Anyone can do a tax return, even those employed by whatever entity you what to choose.

Profits are of course a factor of a company type entity otherwise it's just earnings that tax is calculated on. But that's two differant types of tax.

Tax I have avoided = £0
Tax I will ever avoid = £0

I have absolutely no time for anyone shirking their social duty.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Tax I have avoided = £0
Tax I will ever avoid = £0

I have absolutely no time for anyone shirking their social duty.

Come on. Really, so if you get mileage allowance you wouldnt use it?

Declarations favourable to you on P60 etc?

Ever order a meal or drink to 'take away' then sit on the seating a restaurant provides?

I am self employed as well as having another job. I use the full extent of allowances on offer to me to reduce my tax burden. In fact thanks to government 'avoidance' schemes I didn't pay tax my first two years because I fell below the threshold for earnings they set up. This meagre saving helped a lot.

The phrase 'tax avoidance' is heavy with spin and dripping with malice.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Tax I have avoided = £0
Tax I will ever avoid = £0

I have absolutely no time for anyone shirking their social duty.

Come on. Really, so if you get mileage allowance you wouldnt use it?

Declarations favourable to you on P60 etc?

Ever order a meal or drink to 'take away' then sit on the seating a restaurant provides?

I am self employed as well as having another job. I use the full extent of allowances on offer to me to reduce my tax burden. In fact thanks to government 'avoidance' schemes I didn't pay tax my first two years because I fell below the threshold for earnings they set up. This meagre saving helped a lot.

The phrase 'tax avoidance' is heavy with spin and dripping with malice.

There's tax avoidance and there's tax avoidance.

If you aim to pay 0 I suppose you refuse making use of service provided by goverment with tax paid by others. Or are you leeching off from other tax payers?

Maybe it would be better if goverment would simply cut expenses to 0. That way people wouldn't have to pay any taxes. Of course goverment wouldn't do anything for people either.

At this point my opinion is that the allowances I use which enable me to live trickle down from Mr Rich Mann lobbying to have his Super Yacht classed as a depreciating asset (as an example).

Conversely taxing the rich, as an emotive response to gaining votes, ends up hitting those who are hard working enough and had the foresight to say that yes they will get the Countach they had a poster of as a boy or wish to earn enough to ensure they can live in dignity in their dotage.

 notprop wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Imagine if ordinary workers were allowed to claim tax deductions for all their living costs, the same as companies, so you only paid income tax on your "profits".

Erm ..... Anyone can do a tax return, even those employed by whatever entity you what to choose.

Profits are of course a factor of a company type entity otherwise it's just earnings that tax is calculated on. But that's two differant types of tax.

Yes, but there is no point if you are on PAYE and a standard rate tax payer. You can't claim your mortgage payments as a tax deductible expense like a company can claim its leasehold costs. These two different kinds of tax were introduced only in 1965. Before that, companies paid income tax the same as individuals and a profits tax.

I'm PAYE and do a return - it started off as a requirement when they changed the Child Allowance rules a few years back.

But there are quite a few allowances that everyone can claim (like relief on charitable donations) that Payroll departments do not address. i.e. because they are personal allowances.

I roughly increase my pay by £100 a month through managing my own tax allowances. Worth the effort I think, particular if you are in the high rate bands.

I used to be PAYE and did a return for about 10 years but it isn't a requirement AFAIK if you are on standard PAYE.

I used to claim the charity allowance but it never amounted to a lot each year.

You have to to get Child \Benefit over a certain threshold.

Anything is good once you are in the 40% or above brackets though.

For example the is a rather decent subsistence allowance available to those that commute and do not work at a permanent site for less than 2 years, handy for construction types. It's £10 per day on your tax free threshold if your pulling a 10+ hour day. Times that by 250 odd working days a year and you're £1,000 better off a year quite easily.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Conversely taxing the rich, as an emotive response to gaining votes, ends up hitting those who are hard working enough and had the foresight to say that yes they will get the Countach they had a poster of as a boy or wish to earn enough to ensure they can live in dignity in their dotage.

You make it sound like the top people are the only ones doing the hard work. There are many hard workers (take Nurses for example) that simply have no ability to gain these tax benefits (I'm not using avoidance as that is a different issue). To say nurses, teachers, the local librarian aren't hard workers is completely unfair on them. Some choose to go into professions not just for the money, but maybe because they want to help society, or educate the 'little people'. Maybe they had to spend half their life looking after a disabled parent after they had a stroke etc etc. Just because they are not rich does not mean they don't work hard or have foresight. In reality those at the top are more of the problem because a lot (not all) are not far from being sociopaths as many will quite happily step over their dying grandmother if it got them further up the ladder. It's more likely that empathy holds most people back because they don't like the idea of acting like an elephant in the process of reaching the rich man heights.

You're not benefiting from those tax breaks from depreciating yachts. In reality it is making you relatively poorer because those 'above' you can exploit the tax breaks more then you can - hence they get more rich compared to yourself. The only thing it says is that you are getting more rich than those 'below' you because they have no way of benefiting from those breaks.

I have no issues with paying people more for success, but then I do think excessive greed for the sake of it needs to be stamped out (does someone really need a £100m yacht?) and that tax that discourages this type of behaviour should be encouraged. When the 50 richest people in the world are worth more than 50% of the poorest people in the world then things are going horribly wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I used to be PAYE and did a return for about 10 years but it isn't a requirement AFAIK if you are on standard PAYE.

I used to claim the charity allowance but it never amounted to a lot each year.

IIRC a conversation with a friend you have to do tax returns for a number of years after you stop being self employed/operating as a business even if you have moved to a PAYE system. I think the idea is to capture people that might get a PAYE job whilst still closing out any business or assets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

For those wondering whether Brexit would have an impact on the car industry we have the first evidence it is. Yes, not a major manufacturer, but worrying nonetheless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-37449289