buctootim

You need to change your tax accountant then.

Basically arrange things so you are / appear to be working as a contractor for more than one client through a company like morepay.com.

Fair play to you for fessing up. For the record Ive avoided tax in the past, though don't now. It only makes you a hypocrite if you take an unwavering principled stand on an issue which is incompatible with not paying a full whack of tax - and I do think you stray over the line.

I did a cruise when youngest was 6 months old. Meant you got to travel and see different places without being in the car a lot, creche / babysitting on board, every where airconned, backup of medical facilities at hand. Cruise lines vary on minimum ages, whether you have to pay for child etc so need to check. Good option though.

Dont knock it, worked for Martin Luther King

My first instinct is the same as yours, but when I think about it it does mount up. Largely it depends on how you do the maths though, how much is attributable to the football. I live about 70 miles away so when I go to games will also often make a weekend of it, drink in pub, go out for a meal, see family, shop in John Lewis (not one in Brighton) maybe stay in a hotel. If there wasn't a game on I might do it all in a day and return home at night or might still behave the same. Stats can prove want you want them to.

You pay full PAYE Pap or use a contractor tax avoidance scheme?

Really quite far

No, annually.

Yes, apologies. Back to the killer facts.

Him or Fox, who to scapegoat? Choices, choices, choices....

Ive been taken through the gamut of emotions by persuasive use of facts and adroit debating. Spun round and around until Im 360 degrees from where I started.

This thread is on fire. Ive been persuaded.

Bit misleading imo. The club hasnt been liquidated, just facing a points deduction. .

Its good that they have an 'anorexics with genetic challenges' section. Its important all sections of society are represented.

I think you'll find thats 'least'

I find it bizarre that this whole argument is being rehashed again given the weight of evidence that low wages and insufficient pension contributions lead to ever higher benefits and welfare claims and hence higher taxation. Lots of retailers treat their staff well and genuinely try to avoid far east sweatshops. But if you allow one company to screw everybody to artificially keep costs down and profits up, the rest of the sector have to follow suit. The 'screw em' posters don't even have the "if we don't do this we won't be competitive and jobs will go overseas" argument to fall back on. Its retail ffs. Whats everybody going to do, go shop in Mexico to save £1 because Sporto Directo staff live in a hovel and their shoes are made by eight year olds?

Apples and pears. Flexibility in the workforce is important in enabling employers to respond to demand and workloads. Its always existed - whether through use of casual labour from an agency, the use of overtime, bank staff ala Mrs Duckhunter or flexible hours (with constant pay) as used in most of the car industry. Of course "Not all jobs are for full time life employees looking for a career". After leaving school and before / during university I did loads of temporary or flexible part-time work. It suited me and it suited the employers who supplemented their permanent staff with additional capacity as required. That is wholly different to the effective casualisation of an entire workforce. What Sports Direct is doing is effectively introducing 'fire at will' by the back door. It is putting entire control of an employees income / future in the sole hands of the store manager as a way of bypassing any and all employee protection legislation. So you get dont paid or get sacked (sorry not sacked, simply 'have no hours scheduled') for whatever reason he / she decides - from refusing to sleep with him to having a child in hospital. Its the 1930s all over again and its nasty.

Yeah you can, or at least should be. Not caring about exploitation of those who have no other options because you aren't weak and do have other options isnt something to be trumpeted.

Some graceless twonks on this thread. Good luck in your next move Steve.

and wop.

Seems a bit odd to convert a midfielder to right back and then displace the right back to centre back. Maybe Chambers has more going forward.

Jack Stephens is (was?) primarily a right back. How does that work then?

It depends.. When I childfree I worked as a contractor - took the risk of lack of security of income and associated benefits in exchange for a higher daily rate and lower tax. Thats the capitalist model, you take the risks and reap the rewards. Now with kids and big mortgage I work as staff for less money and more tax but certainty of income. What you are proposing is that the employees should bear the downside risks with none of the upside benefits - thats wrong.

Left or right?