Whitey Grandad

One look at him and they'd turn straight round.

Alto Paulo

I'm sure it's technically possible but at what cost?

Not quite as extreme but last week I went into Athens from Piraeus on the train for €1.20 each way.

Well thank you sir, I'm quite touched. Just not as often as I might prefer.

When I used to play for IBM 'B' team on Sunday mornings at their ground in Hursley Charlie George used to take his dog out for a walk and would stand on the side watching us. I believe he lived for a while in one of those newish houses opposite the Stone Seat.

Gordon Strachan in Marks and Spencer at Hedge End a few years ago. It was just before Christmas and I gave him one of my spare money off vouchers. He seemed very pleased.

Why can't you get French Mustard in France?

To be fair...

A PLC is more complicated than a basic Limited Company. Back in my day it meant something like £50,000 of paid up capital plus other requirements on number of directors and filing accounts.

It was about capital allowances and the incorporation of a sole trader. The relevant law states that if assets are transferred at book value then they are allowable but the Revenue claim that no allowances are possible in the first year of trading. Accountants all know about this but until it has been tested in court the Revenue's position holds sway. There were other vindictive interpretations as well such as reneging on written agreements that were over thirty years old. Accountants are like solicitors in that they hide behind their terms of engagement.

Grealish must be an adjective and not a name. "To greal" - to roll around on the ground whimpering.

Yes they are necessary but the only way to raise large amounts is to take money from the ordinary person. The self employed do pay tax.

Au contraire mon ami, au contraire.

Much less? That's what all the debates about tax systems are about. Gaffer curves and all that stuff. The basic rate has been up at 35% in my lifetime.

Nope. Nothing like that at all. And I deeply resent the implication. So going back 30 years and changing the terms of a written agreement retrospectively is "having to pay the correct amount"? I had been scrupulous in being honest and declaring every penny of my income up until then. Ever since then I don't bother trying to earn anything.

I was talking about Tax Investigations. I know of several instances where an arbitrary sum has been demanded, in one case (nothing to do with me) leading directly to the closure of the business and the loss of nineteen jobs. Despite a written agreement a new Tax Officer decided to cancel it and apply his own interpretation.

It also happens with a flat tax.

"Our data scientists do" They would say that, wouldn't they. I maintain that their results show that they have their modelling wrong. This confirms what I have been saying, that the figures are subjective. Someone has created this 'model'. It's hocus pocus. Snake Oil of the purest form.

That would be very noble if that were to happen. Unfortunately that is not usual.

That would be very noble if that were to happen. Unfortunately that is not usual.

I know you are not that naive. The outcome of a Tax Investigation is entirely in the hands of the investigator. They can go back over all time and add tax to what was agreed in writing 40 years ago. If you disagree you can ask for a Tribunal but you need a lot of money for that. In my case they refused any allowance for capital purchases despite what it says in the relevant Tax Law. "We don't agree with that interpretation" was what I was told.

No, I doubt we ever will agree. I date back to a time when there was a Supertax of 95%. There's a strong argument for a flat rate tax, certainly in terms of maximising revenue. I don't keep "more for myself" because I choose not to work so hard and I don't take so many financial risks. This is one reason why Britain fails economically.

They walk among us. What an idiot!

Good grief. Somebody, or some people, have to sit in front of a screen and allocate a value to that chance. More importantly, no two opportunities are ever the same or even similar. There are simply too many factors. To ignore or dismiss those is to oversimplify.