I’ve seen people driving cars and buying food recently. It’s a fucking joke. These are the cunts who need taxing.
2 Likes
Bloke in my local had around 8 pints of Guinness last Saturday.
He could have had 6 and coughed up a bit more to the treasury.
He’s a pensioner too, scrounging cunt
And you know that is not what I meant…
The extra tax should be raised from those who can afford it…and especially from those who evade paying it…
This will help a bit…
1 Like
The whole tax system need radically rethinking. People need a quality of life. We can’t just keep bleeding working/middle class people and totally ignoring the elephant in the room. People are rightly angry about the tax burden being so high, but don’t necessarily understand the difference between income, wealth, and assets. They don’t necessarily understand that people who are mega rich pay hardly anything because the vast majority of their wealth is accumulated not by working hard, but by using their unearned wealth to generate passive income, which is barely taxed.
https://youtube.com/shorts/7DGiCU1F-FM?si=e42NhRpMHuXZ0YFv
This guy is the clearest speaker on the subject right now, and he articulates the problem. The issue is wealth. Too much wealth in the hands of too few people. These bastards are taking millions and billions a year in passive income, and it’s all - because it’s the only thing you can do with that much money - being used to buy up assets.
We need to radically rethink our tax system so it shifts from taxing income to taxing wealth. If we don’t do this, we are going to end up in a Dickensian nightmare of mass poverty, homelessness, and excess deaths. No system can survive this degree of inequality.
5 Likes
Landlords of multiple properties.
I do a lot of work for a small letting agent, who are generally very good to work with.
I carried out some work for the local branch of a massive letting company, until I was contacted by their head office requesting me to sign their contract.
7 pages long with a list of terms which included…
- We want 15% commission on any work we ask you to do
- We will endeavour to pay your invoice within 30 days of receiving the rent from the property tenants.
- If a landlord refuses to pay for repair/upgrade that is between you and the landlord.
Needless to say they were told to find another joiner.
Apparently their portfolio is over 10k properties.
They, and companies like them need to be nailed down
8 Likes
One of my regular customers for many years was a large multinational office equipment company. Their payment terms were nett 90 days…
I had another that is a well known high street pubco. Not sure wether anyone can guess who they are. They had similar terms and almost always had to be chased up after the 90 days.
1 Like
if I’ve read that right… It states that if they don’t get paid the rent, you don’t get paid for doing the work…
2 Likes
That’s what they inferred.
My payment terms are 7 days, and that is generous
2 Likes
So now you’re comparing multi-millionaires who have just trousered another £3.6 million for winning a few games of tennis with ordinary people who might have scrimped and saved all year and made other sacrifices to be able to take their family on what could be a once in a lifetime holiday?
This was common in government as well. When the Blair government came in (1997) one of the first directives that ministers sent through was that all invoices should be paid as soon as possible after receipt. (I think the guidance was max 5 working days assuming that there were no discrepancies.)
The knock on effect of this was that we found that contractors were falling over themselves for the work, and the average cost of tenders came down.
I’ve no idea what it is like now.
2 Likes
The frustrating thing about working with civil servants for me was just how little comprehension there was of the realities of needing to actually get paid.
I had a small company doing a large Transport contract, with payments coming through Public Works. There was some kind of systems problem between the two, so payments stopped happening. At 90 days, those receivables were no longer financable under the operating line of credit, so in effect the bank started making cash calls.
The Transport project team were incredulous that in our monthly progress meeting we put discussion of the schedule implications at the top of the agenda - simply did not see the connection between the two and did not want to discuss it, in fact noting the contractual penalties for delay.
Given that they had taken 2 weeks to set the project meeting, they were somewhat taken aback when we served the default notice that left them about 10 business days to remedy - having made no progress on resolving their internal issue for 170
2 Likes
28 days I suspect.
1 Like
Probably. One of our economists actually wrote a paper about it at the time. I think it was related more to game theory than anything else.
1 Like
No idea but that is probably after receiving approval of their payment application. So it could be 6 weeks before they get paid.
Worth noting, in my experience all major engineering firms do it in a similar way with their subcontractors.
1 Like
I am not falling out with you again especially as we appear to now have a memorandum of understanding. I didn’t mean to conflate the two examples.
My bottom line is those who can pay should pay and maybe even pay a little more…I’ll leave it there.
1 Like
Ok I’m only a one man business, but as soon as work is complete to the customers satisfaction, the invoice goes in.
Sometimes same day, next day at latest.
My motto is, if you cant afford to get the work done, don’t call me.
If you can afford it, pay up.
1 Like
Yes. Yes. Simply yes. Yes, this is what your country needs ! It needs a lot of other, more important things of course, but first this !
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/2077353155054964824
7 Likes
@redfanman covered it well, my comment was not saying that the pension schemes should not be paying out relatively to other projects, but more to the idea that the UK has a poor situation relative to the funding of those pension obligations.
On the one hand, the ‘triple lock’ is one of the most aggressive guaranties of the rate of growth of pension obligations in the OECD. On the other hand, it is has one of the lowest contribution rates, forcing the use of other government revenue to cover what has been a widening gap between revenue and expense.
Pensions generally have social license from the idea that we contribute all of our lives, and collect later in life when we need it. There are two fundamental models, ‘pay as you go’ and an investment capital model whereby revenues are saved and ideally invested to be grown over time. The pay-as-you-go model takes pension revenues from today’s workers and pays out those who worked in the past. Implicitly, that assumes that the number of workers today will always be large enough to afford that.
When the UK system was designed, the pay-as-you-go was chosen and the ratio of contributors to payees was about 6:1. Today, it is closer to 2:1 - the contribution rate has barely budged, where by design it should have tripled. The contributions rate (employee and employer) remains one of the lowest in the OECD, so correspondingly the amount of other government revenue that has to be paid out to cover the gap is the highest percentage in the OECD.
3 Likes