Current Affairs

[Kendhni]

It is impossible to create a tax system that does not have any loopholes. The first loophole is define "income"

Indeed. I believe it is every persons right to avoid as much tax as possible.

[barney]

Spain has relaxed it’s covid restrictions on over 12s being vaccinated.
The tourist £ wins again .

[oldbluefox]

It is impossible to create a tax system that does not have any loopholes. The first loophole is define "income"

Indeed. I believe it is every persons right to avoid as much tax as possible.

If everybody paid the taxes they should be paying the rest would pay less, especially those earning least.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I am bewildered by the idea that the government has had time on its hands over the last two years to take forward its plans. Like all of us, in fact more than most of us, the government has been paralysed by a major health emergency. Did anyone else notice it?

[Kendhni]

It is impossible to create a tax system that does not have any loopholes. The first loophole is define "income"

Indeed. I believe it is every persons right to avoid as much tax as possible.

If everybody paid the taxes they should be paying the rest would pay less, especially those earning least.

The government make the rules and as long as you work within those rules you are paying the taxes you should.

[Onelife]

It is impossible to create a tax system that does not have any loopholes. The first loophole is define "income"

Indeed. I believe it is every persons right to avoid as much tax as possible.

The problem with that Analogy Ken is that the wealthy have the means to avoid what they should be paying which kind of goes against the principles of a fairer society and deprives the country of monies to fill the potholes outside my house…not to mention leaving the poorer poor a the rich richer.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Of course there is legally right and morally right.

[Kendhni]

It is impossible to create a tax system that does not have any loopholes. The first loophole is define "income"

Indeed. I believe it is every persons right to avoid as much tax as possible.

The problem with that Analogy Ken is that the wealthy have the means to avoid what they should be paying which kind of goes against the principles of a fairer society and deprives the country of monies to fill the potholes outside my house…not to mention leaving the poorer poor a the rich richer.

I think we have to be clear and make a distinction between 'avoid' and 'evade'. I am totally against tax evasion but I would be surprised if anyone on this site has not avoided tax when they could (or they would be fools if they didn't) ... pensions, ISAs, gifting money are all legal forms of tax avoidance. It is well within everyone's legal and moral rights to avoid as much tax as possible ... if not the government has the opportunity to change the rules.

[Kendhni]

I am bewildered by the idea that the government has had time on its hands over the last two years to take forward its plans. Like all of us, in fact more than most of us, the government has been paralysed by a major health emergency. Did anyone else notice it?

I dunno, they had plenty of time to organise and attend multiple parties.

[Manoverboard]

Job losses in the future will be massive due to robotics, this will result in those on very high pay grades and the rest scratching out a living by doing several menial jobs.

I have heard that since I was a kid, but history has shown that is not the case.

When you were a kid there was full employment ( at least there was where I lived ) and the less gifted could find well paid jobs in factories etc. Then came the computer revolution and umpteen more jobs were created by the financial sector but meanwhile the Union rebels destroyed most of the automotive industry here in the UK.

Fast forward and whereas there were once 40,000+ working in the biggest car plants there are now just hundreds, many of the computer related jobs have been automated else streamlined and de-skilled. Factories and Banks are increasingly being automated as are Help Desks and many other services.

These days more and more people are working on the sub £10 an hour rate and I stick with my view that the trend to drive down costs will continue. Jobs for life will be no more for the vast majority and the most technically gifted will move to Asia to do contract work for the UK based industries.

[Kendhni]

Job losses in the future will be massive due to robotics, this will result in those on very high pay grades and the rest scratching out a living by doing several menial jobs.

I have heard that since I was a kid, but history has shown that is not the case.

When you were a kid there was full employment ( at least there was where I lived ) and the less gifted could find well paid jobs in factories etc. Then came the computer revolution and umpteen more jobs were created by the financial sector but meanwhile the Union rebels destroyed most of the automotive industry here in the UK.

Fast forward and whereas there were once 40,000+ working in the biggest car plants there are now just hundreds, many of the computer related jobs have been automated else streamlined and de-skilled. Factories and Banks are increasingly being automated as are Help Desks and many other services.

These days more and more people are working on the sub £10 an hour rate and I stick with my view that the trend to drive down costs will continue. Jobs for life will be no more for the vast majority and the most technically gifted will move to Asia to do contract work for the UK based industries.

Definitely not full employment when I was a kid. The UK unemployment rates were, percentage wise, about double of what they are today. The population has grown by about 30% since then as well ... and, as successive governments love to tell us, there have never been so many people in employment in the UK. However, it is hard to compare, because we record things differently, and the benefit system is also very different.

I can see what you are saying, but I think technology has created more jobs than it has destroyed (we couldn't expect everyone still to be riding horses). Prior to the pandemic were we not close to the peak production of cars within the UK?

I have never lived in an era of 'job for life' .. although strictly speaking I know many that have actually achieved that. I agree with you about sub £10 wage, but in real terms that provides a better standard of living than many would have had 50-60 years ago. There has always been a desire to drive down costs and improve productivity (even from way before I was the swimming champ in paters personage) and I agree that will continue ... but, on the other hand, much of that is being rewarded back to the worker through a much better work/life balance.

Migration of labour is an interesting one. I can see pros and cons there, but as one opportunity closes generally a country finds another. Overall I think that there will be a continuing shift of power from the west to the east ... how deep that goes is anybody's guess ... are we witnessing the 21st century equivalent of the fall of the Roman or Egyptian empires?

Today we enjoy a much higher standard of living than we did 50-60 years ago, even at the lower end of the pay scale (albeit through government subsidy .. but then arguably that is redistribution of tax money from the rich to the poor). All-in-all I much prefer todays living standards versus those of my parents or grand parents. I suspect that trend will continue with todays children looking back to the dark old days of 2000-2020 very content with the progress of society ... or at least I would like to hope that was the case.

[towny44]

It is impossible to create a tax system that does not have any loopholes. The first loophole is define "income"

Indeed. I believe it is every persons right to avoid as much tax as possible.

The problem with that Analogy Ken is that the wealthy have the means to avoid what they should be paying which kind of goes against the principles of a fairer society and deprives the country of monies to fill the potholes outside my house…not to mention leaving the poorer poor a the rich richer.

Have you only just noticed that Ken has both some very extreme right wing as well as left wing views, which makes him very difficult to understand.

[barney]

Indeed. I believe it is every persons right to avoid as much tax as possible.

The problem with that Analogy Ken is that the wealthy have the means to avoid what they should be paying which kind of goes against the principles of a fairer society and deprives the country of monies to fill the potholes outside my house…not to mention leaving the poorer poor a the rich richer.

Have you only just noticed that Ken has both some very extreme right wing as well as left wing views, which makes him very difficult to understand.

A walking, talking contradiction John.

[Manoverboard]

Today we enjoy a much higher standard of living than we did 50-60 years ago, even at the lower end of the pay scale (albeit through government subsidy .. but then arguably that is redistribution of tax money from the rich to the poor). All-in-all I much prefer todays living standards versus those of my parents or grand parents. I suspect that trend will continue with todays children looking back to the dark old days of 2000-2020 very content with the progress of society ... or at least I would like to hope that was the case.

The TV series about the impact of robotics that we watched suggested that the levels we have all reached cannot continually be exceeded so it makes sense to me to expect a levelling off in our own family group but it could well be different within families that start from a lower point.

[Onelife]

Indeed. I believe it is every persons right to avoid as much tax as possible.

The problem with that Analogy Ken is that the wealthy have the means to avoid what they should be paying which kind of goes against the principles of a fairer society and deprives the country of monies to fill the potholes outside my house…not to mention leaving the poorer poor a the rich richer.

Have you only just noticed that Ken has both some very extreme right wing as well as left wing views, which makes him very difficult to understand.

Most of us have interchangeable views where politics are concerned…me thinks.

I would say Ken, like yourself makes more good posts than bad ones which allows for all the rubbish you talk in-between....hope that answers your question?

[Kendhni]

Today we enjoy a much higher standard of living than we did 50-60 years ago, even at the lower end of the pay scale (albeit through government subsidy .. but then arguably that is redistribution of tax money from the rich to the poor). All-in-all I much prefer todays living standards versus those of my parents or grand parents. I suspect that trend will continue with todays children looking back to the dark old days of 2000-2020 very content with the progress of society ... or at least I would like to hope that was the case.

The TV series about the impact of robotics that we watched suggested that the levels we have all reached cannot continually be exceeded so it makes sense to me to expect a levelling off in our own family group but it could well be different within families that start from a lower point.

It is a very interesting topic, and one I have bought a book about as I relax by the pool on our upcoming holiday.
Throughout history people have often said that we have reached the extreme of some technology or social position ... but then someone somewhere comes up with ways and means of exceeding previously believed boundaries. For example, quantum computing may well offer many possibilities, both good and bad. We are a resourceful species and often find ways around our limitations.

[Onelife]

There have been amazing technological advancements over the past century and I dare say there will be many more to come. That being said the question of whether our lives have been enriched by some of them will I believe be answered when we find future generation having lost all interactive skills other than conversing through their technology devices. Such devices are now being used in preference to meeting up and experiencing that emotional attachment that is crucial in personal development…especially so where children are concerned.
Children are becoming clones of each other, many of whom are living their superficial lives through a computer and in doing so are losing the skills/ability to see reality above that of what tec giants want them to see.

Of course, technical devices have their place in a modern society but losing sight of where this is taking us will in the future be the question that technology can’t answer. imo

[Mervyn and Trish]

I agree with you OL. New technology is great but it should be our servant. There's a danger it's becoming our master.

[Kendhni]

Of course, technical devices have their place in a modern society but losing sight of where this is taking us will in the future be the question that technology can’t answer. imo

I agree, there is a lot of good and a lot of bad that can come from technology.
When we go to a restaurant I am amazed at how often we see families spending valuable family time together with them all staring at their own mobile device. While technology has gone a long way to improving our lives it has, in other areas become a huge time waster. On the other hand though I do not think it is right for us to judge how the next generation will use and value new technology (some of which has not even been dreamt of yet).

I am sure our grand parents looked at how us 'kids' were using all those new fangled gizmos with some wanting advancement to stop ... but I am glad it didn't. I have lived through what will probably be looked back on as a technical revolution and am continually amazed at the ideas the last few generations have come up with and how much benefit it has brought in many fields (and sadly, in some cases, how much destruction it has created).

You questioned about interactive skills ... on one hand I agree on another I disagree. The way people communicate has changed significantly over the last couple of decades ... is it better? ... is it worse? ... all I can say is that it is different.

I have always found it strange how many people are scared of change, I have always tried to embrace change (even if it does leave me sending out a barrage of expletives every now and then).

[david63]

On that subject - did anyone see the report earlier this week from Ofstead saying that there are many schoolchildren who now believe that online learning is better than face to face learning? If we go down that road then we are in danger of having a generation that does online learning followed bu working from home and communication with anyone (and there will probably only be a few) they know via WhatsApp, Zoom or whatever comes next and never getting out of bed, let alone going out of the house.

[Kendhni]

On that subject - did anyone see the report earlier this week from Ofstead saying that there are many schoolchildren who now believe that online learning is better than face to face learning?

My first reaction to this was 'no way' but then when you start thinking about it there may be some logic. Other countries have been using remote learning for many years; home schooling has been growing in the UK for many years; also, as my nephew told me, he is more able to learn and complete assignments at his own pace, when it suits him, and the teacher is on call when needed. There is also an argument that it instils a bit more responsibility into the kids, there is more of an onus on them to partake rather than forced participation

If we go down that road then we are in danger of having a generation that does online learning followed bu working from home and communication with anyone (and there will probably only be a few) they know via WhatsApp, Zoom or whatever comes next and never getting out of bed, let alone going out of the house.

I remember reading an article a couple of years ago about society becoming less social ... it was one of those that puts the case for and the case against. A lot of good points were made on both sides. One of the arguments was that with all the new ways of communicating (skype, teams, zoom, messaging, social media etc.) people are actually more in touch and involved in each others lives than years ago when communication was by monthly snail mail or the (overpriced) weekly phone call. Since lockdown started I have never had so many roadside chats with neighbours.

When we started working from home there was a concern that people would not get out of bed or only pretend to work. I am part of that process, and in my experience working with many other people, I find people are busier, easier to get hold off and, according to management, we have been more productive than when in the office. I have been hearing that story from many people in many companies. By continuing, there are many benefits to be gained both by those that can work from home and those that cannot.

As I said above, the way we communicate is changing (for better or worse). But I agree with concerns about never leaving the house. There does need to be a balance, and I am starting to think that it may actually be there already. When we go out to restaurants I am seeing more and more groups of teenagers meeting up; our gym is busy; the Saturday morning run in the park has never had so many people (right across the age spectrum ... even a couple of babies being pushed around in prams); youtube and other channels are reporting that their fitness videos are being highly used. My own company issues monthly fitness challenges and rewards us with 'ahem' tax free payments if we complete them.

Overall I would not necessarily call it bad ... it is just different as the next generation evolve into their way of living ... no different to previous generations. I am hoping to see the next generation having more free time and even better work/life balance than we had.

BTW we are awaiting the results of a company wide survey in relation to returning to offices. The grapevine has it that only a tiny minority want this to be full time in the office (1-in-20 was the number I have heard); there is a majority that want 100% work from home; although many say they could tolerate 1-2 days back in the office (per week). When talking to colleagues in other companies, the overwhelming message to management (in my line of work) appears to be that if they try to force people back into the office they better have a good recruitment program in place .... in fact when I get notices from recruiters WFH is now at the top of the list of 'benefits'.

[Onelife]

On that subject - did anyone see the report earlier this week from Ofstead saying that there are many schoolchildren who now believe that online learning is better than face to face learning? If we go down that road then we are in danger of having a generation that does online learning followed bu working from home and communication with anyone (and there will probably only be a few) they know via WhatsApp, Zoom or whatever comes next and never getting out of bed, let alone going out of the house.

Hi David…I didn’t see the report but I endorse everything you have said about it.

[barney]

What I find interesting is that since covid, more and more people have become isolated, whether by choice or not.
What we once viewed as normal behaviour I.e. going to the pub or similar is now viewed by some, suspiciously.
As people do more functions in isolation, such as studying or working from home, more will lose normal social interactions.
A very short anecdote but I was chatting with a near neighbour recently and he told me that he had gone into Barnstaple the day before and was so shocked and disappointed to see how many shops were empty.
I agreed that is was looking sad then asked him when he’d previously been in and he replied about three years.
That’s part of the problem.
Buy your groceries online but don’t be surprised when that shop down the road that you use for emergencies is no longer there.
I’m aware that working from home suits some but let’s not kid ourselves that it’s a normal way for humans to interact.
I suppose an unintended byproduct is that you can easily avoid those know it all colleagues that have got on your nerves for years

[Stephen]

Cressida D*ck

£500.000 pay off and £160.000 a year pension according to the Mail.

Very nice to.

[Kendhni]

Not surprising. A friend of mine in the police was effectively made redundant with a 6 figure payout on the Friday and then went back in on the Monday as a civilian employee on much higher contractor wages.