I tend to agree with you, the whole thing should be simplified. KISS!
... Well maybe she's not rich enough?.
Since you "tend to agree" why did you suggest purchase tax was fair in the first place?
Would have thought that to be clear, even to an argumentative you?
Indeed, such abuse is practiced by small companies too. In one I worked for the chairman had two personal servants at his home, a housekeeper and a chauffeur/handyman. Both also had a very nominal duty in nearby company premises, and in charge of that unit and therefore their nominal manager I paid their wages.
There is abuse and will continue to be, whatever system we have. The fact that 'your' company was still able to make enough 'profit' to cover those additional wages might be wrong, yet - they were employed and would spend that money, locally one hopes? You didn't say they were illegal immigrants?
Both very English but very different in another way. One was still working in that job well into her eighties, the other died of prostate cancer two years short of retirement age.
Not really, the chairman retired and wasn't keeping on the housekeeper. As someone on the basic state pension she was dependant on the additional income so I made her nominal duty a real but very easy one to continue her income. Basically she made tea!
you mean robin hood keeping most of the money himself and working the little band of brothers to death serving his needs? the snag with this morality is that what goes around really does come around (as you will likely find out if you get old in a conservative England and the nurse doesn't come after you soiled the bed the fourth time)
No, I don't mean that at all! The only thing you could possibly say here is that the guy employed two people, paid them wages, arguably out of the taxes he would have paid on his profits if he hadn't employed them. OK they cleaned his house and did the garden. I'm sure they didn't feel hard done by anymore than the decorator that takes a back-hander.
Again not quite, but I understand that comments without knowing the whole story are made in good faith.
you seem to forget that they were his "servants" - one of whom was "working into her eighties", the other "dying of prostate cancer two years short of retirement age" - while he was "retired". that may seem a level playing field to you, it doesn't to me. it about more than "backhanders", its about whether we get to live our lives in a more equal shared reality.
this is really what it gets back to for me, the rich arranging their lives and the poor paying for it, the next time anyone complains about the house of lords bear in mind what you said about the chairman, after all it is simply about "backhanders and charity" on a different scale isn't it?
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/mango-ceases-trading-thanks-to-brexit-seeks-buyer/022018?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=BikeBiz Newsflash
Come off it, this is just silly, petty nonsense. Obviously, I don't know the full story, anymore than you do, but I doubt either of the two felt hard done by.
Steb,
no its not, the poor have lower life expectancy than the rich, as one would expect. I'm not really hung up with the specific case, more the general principle. But whether they felt hard done by has little bearing on the injustice.
