|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 25, 2024 6:46:46 GMT
There's no genocide in Israel. Israel is within its rights to deconstruct the organisation which captured dozens of its citizens, without provocation. It's a Palestinian problem, not an israeli one, that the cowardly tactic of human shielding is in widespread use.
This proves that this forum has not become CWDF. Over there, the Jew hating membership would have been backed by the jew hating moderation team and banned anyone having the temerity to make such a post. The termination of my own membership is proof of this.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 24, 2024 11:38:59 GMT
Thanks for the responses. It seems generally that there's more concerns about the future and dissatisfaction with the number of boats, and the temperament of other boaters. Is that a fair assessment ? Rog Maybe it’s just that as we age, we become less happy. I have noticed that when I’m out with my children and friends, or out with the car club, that there is generally more fun and laughter to be had. There definitely can be less fun and laughter as we age. We've seen most of it before, right? We might balance this though against the feeling of contentment. In my case at least, this is off the scale, compared to when I was younger.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 23, 2024 19:27:14 GMT
Go to a fully fledged tax expert instead of google🙄 Jim!🙄 ‘A married couple who own more than one home are free to choose which is their “principal residence” for capital gains tax purposes by sending a nomination to HMRC within two years of the situation arising. If they don’t, relief applies by reference to which home was their joint main residence as a matter of fact. Given Rayner’s apparent misunderstanding of the law, it would be surprising if she and her husband had made a nomination to HMRC. On the facts available, it seems reasonably clear their joint main residence would have been her husband’s house: he seems to have lived only there, their children lived mostly there, and she lived there at least some of the time. There’s been much speculation about where (Angela) Rayner’s home was during the period of her marriage. But this isn’t terribly relevant – the question is where their joint main residence was, and there’s little doubt that was her husband’s house.’ Yeah but..she's a Northern girl, don't different rules apply?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 23, 2024 19:25:20 GMT
Hubby apparently made over £130000 😱 profit on his house sale, so which was their primary residence as a married couple? Which house sale of the two is liable for CGT on the profit?🤷🏻♂️ 😂 archive.ph/Nq5xyStruggling like a real Tory there lad, go Google "can married couple each claim capital gains on different properties" You and your spouse or civil partner are treated as separate individuals for Capital Gains Tax purposes. Each of you will pay tax only on your own gains and you will get relief only for your own losses. www.gov.uk › publications HS281 Capital Gains Tax civil partners and spouses (2021) 130k profit is small beer, given the rise in house prices. Just had my house valued this week, it's not far off that sort of figure. We've been here a good few years and done lots of improvements. No CGT either. Whoop dee doo! There will be plenty of CGT due when you sell your buy to lets. That's the problem with relatively illiquid investments. Although the new Tory party, now big government tax and spend has now slashed the capital gains tax allowance, it still exists. If you have relatively liquid investments you can take advantage of the allowance each financial year. Something you might describe as failure, I guess. Mind, i suppose you, being a socialist, will be pleased to pay as much tax as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 22, 2024 12:21:11 GMT
How many peaks are there in the Peak District?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 21, 2024 10:53:58 GMT
Of course people should pay their fair share of tax. The question is, what's a fair share? A significant proportion of British people are net recipients of tax. So, they pay less than nothing. Is that their fair share? Do you not think people in need should be helped? I doubt they get anything approaching a fair share though. You're twisting the conversation. It was about people paying their fair share. People have to pay a fair share before they can receive a fair share.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 21, 2024 10:36:11 GMT
The question is do you think corporations and the people who profit from them should pay their fair share of tax? Or is is right that people on the minimum wage pay a higher percentage of their earnings in tax than the top 10% of earners. As for private education establishments being charities and having the tax breaks that come with that, why? Of course people should pay their fair share of tax. The question is, what's a fair share? A significant proportion of British people are net recipients of tax. So, they pay less than nothing. Is that their fair share?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 21, 2024 9:56:21 GMT
A question for the socialists on here. Which do you think is better: a/ The entire population being equally poor. b/ Half the population being poor (as above), the other half being rich. When did you stop beating your girlfriend love partner? What a weird question.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 20, 2024 21:51:53 GMT
You don't need to be a mathematics genius to realise that there's an 's' on the end of the word.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 20, 2024 19:40:33 GMT
A question for the socialists on here. Which do you think is better:
a/ The entire population being equally poor.
b/ Half the population being poor (as above), the other half being rich.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 20, 2024 14:29:04 GMT
I think you're right, not much in it either way. Labour claim it will raise significant revenues. Labour's 'fully costed' plans are always dodgy. It will raise revenues to be spent on schools. Fully costed over the parliaments lifetime. Earlier you suggested it would be cost neutral, in the medium term?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 20, 2024 13:06:07 GMT
The average cost of private education is £20K. Not £30K. You haven't included costs of the additional infrastructure requirements for the increased number of state students. In reply to your edit, I did in my reply to Mr Berg's post about teaching kids in the bike sheds.
However I think I've done sufficient to show that over a period of a few years the policy will be cost neutral rather than costing the state more. And after that would be cost beneficial. I'll leave others to decide whether it is a good policy or not in terms of society.
I think you're right, not much in it either way. Labour claim it will raise significant revenues. Labour's 'fully costed' plans are always dodgy.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 20, 2024 12:33:48 GMT
Your maths isn't very good is it...
75% will be paying an extra 20% on a large fee (maybe £30k or more)
25% will now be educated by the state (at a cost of £7,690 for secondary education)
Now lets say there are currently 100,000 in private education all paying 30k a year.
Vat receipts = 75000 x 30k x 20% = £450000000
Cost of educating 25000 by the state = 25000 x £7690 = £192250000
Net result = £257750000 or £275 million per year to improve state education.
The average cost of private education is £20K. Not £30K. You haven't included costs of the additional infrastructure requirements for the increased number of state students.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 20, 2024 12:18:25 GMT
I've already explained my previous 'anarchist' signature. Perhaps you weren't listening. Or perhaps you're unable to hold on to information for very long. I did read what you wrote, it wasn't English as we normally know and understand it. So the Anarchist label was just to appear Cool ,Clinton? You are always banging on about small state, the way forward is to set an example and show how it's done. Each man is an island and all that. It's indicative of my desire for a smaller state, with less rules and regulation. Shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend. Even you should get it. Those wanting to appear cool often give the impression of aligning themselves with the fad of the day. Before moving on to the next one, and so on. Black lives matter were popular a few years back, amongst those wishing to make themselves look cool. Not sure where black lives matter are these days other than being hand in hand with their fellow so called progressives, the SNP, embezzling cash.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 20, 2024 11:01:09 GMT
I'm in Wales, waited 21 months for my first appointment. You could always put your money where your mouth is and stop relying on the state, you know, like a proper anarchist. I've already explained my previous 'anarchist' signature. Perhaps you weren't listening. Or perhaps you're unable to hold on to information for very long.
|
|