|
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 18:05:57 on Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked: The German word is "Freie Berufe", the adjetive or adverb "freiberuflich". This is of relevance for VAT -- those who are working "freiberuflich" don't pay VAT. In some professions, one can chose if one works "freiberuflich" or as commercially as a business. In the latter case, one has to pay VAT, or rather, charge VAT to one's customers. In Britain, you don't get the choice if "taxable supplies" (revenue) exceed £67k. I wonder if an MP has to take account of the monies paid to him to run his office, as a "taxable supply", or whether they are entirely exempt from the VAT system. For the avoidance of doubt, I'll assume all the "expenses" are valid ones. Looking down the list and picking the first person as my random example: Ms Diane Abbott claimed around £131k, *none* of which was for a second home. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm If they ran their offices as self-employed businesses, they would, but I don't doubt that they exempted themselves (not to save money, but just to simplify their paperwork). In fact, I don't know if the money for things like staff costs isn't paid directly to the staff, rather than via the MP's books. I know that when I invoice my customers, I have to charge VAT even on things like reimbursed public transport fares that are not themselves subject to VAT. Of course, it's all a waste of time, as the money I charge my customers just moves in a loop: they pay me, I pass it on to HMRC, and my customers claim it back from HMRC. And, of course, from time to time the VAT people audit me, even though any errors I might have made would simply cancel out. So, lots of time and effort incurred by all concerned, for zero net revenue to HMG. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message , at 19:47:46 on
Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked: Looking down the list and picking the first person as my random example: Ms Diane Abbott claimed around £131k, *none* of which was for a second home. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm If they ran their offices as self-employed businesses, they would, but I don't doubt that they exempted themselves (not to save money, but just to simplify their paperwork). In fact, I don't know if the money for things like staff costs isn't paid directly to the staff, rather than via the MP's books. One of the proposed changes is that the staff will be paid direct from Westminster. (Which sounds to me like something that will require a whole new layer of admin, so they can be assured what hours those people have actually worked). -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Tony Polson wrote:
Mizter T wrote: That said, I am in favour (I think!) of the massively expensive Crossrail project... for a long time I didn't really have any properly considered thoughts on it because I thought it was unlikely to ever happen, but it seems it is now happening (as ever there's some uncertainty of course). Though Crossrail won't facilitate long- distance commuting per-se directly, but inevitably that will be a side- effect. An article I read a few years ago suggested that Crossrail would enable the affluent professionals who are living to the west of London to get to their highly paid jobs in the City with ease, and the poorer people from the East End to get to their (not much more than) minimum wage jobs in the West End in less time than now. :-( I should just add that I'm not anti-professional people (whatever that means!), nor anti-commuting as such. I certainly appreciate the complex and multi-layered reasoning at play behind the decision of people to do more lengthy commutes. Though I (obviously) do take some issue with long-distance daily commuting (FSVO "long-distance", which is of course debatable!). Yes, I suppose I opened up a can of worms. ;-) And sometimes I think I might implode under the mass of my own internal contradictions... and then just propose that everyone should go off and live off the land, being crofters and woodsmen, where the big journey is into the next town but one! But the genie of travel is of course out of the bottle. We cannot hope to address climate change without taking a good hard look at transport. But I am pleased to report that sales of videoconferencing systems are holding up well in spite of the recession. Companies are at last beginning to see it as a genuine alternative to expensive and time consuming travelling to meetings. I have no doubt academia will lag years behind commerce, with the usual underworked scientists insisting (to the few who listen) that the scientific value of face to face networking far exceeds the economic and environmental cost of their time and travel to and from the meetings. Of course these are the same guys who will be lecturing us on changing our travel habits, indeed our whole way of life, in the papers they present at their far-flung and highly repetitive conferences. ;-) No doubt the pen-pushers and postal clerks with be able to produce video conferencing without needing anything produced by scientists. They'll just need to bang the rocks /really/ hard. I used to be lectured by a scientific colleague who strongly criticised my use of a car for leisure trips because of the CO2 it emitted. The same guy was a regular visitor to the Galapagos Islands, often more than once in a year, and drove over 30,000 business miles a year in a car with a 2.7 litre V6 that drank petrol like it was going out of fashion. If he had used a more economical car, such as mine, he would have saved far more CO2 than all my annual car use emitted, leisure *and* business. Aren't scientists wonderful. You lost that argument at some point in the eighteenth century or so, if not far earlier. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Jul 13, 8:00*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 19:47:46 on Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked: Looking down the list and picking the first person as my random example: Ms Diane Abbott claimed around £131k, *none* of which was for a second home.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm If they ran their offices as self-employed businesses, they would, but I don't doubt that they exempted themselves (not to save money, but just to simplify their paperwork). In fact, I don't know if the money for things like staff costs isn't paid directly to the staff, rather than via the MP's books. One of the proposed changes is that the staff will be paid direct from Westminster. (Which sounds to me like something that will require a whole new layer of admin, so they can be assured what hours those people have actually worked). Which is fine by me, if it stops dodgy MPs 'employing' their children who somehow do all the work whilst they're 300 miles away at university, and other such scams. Some MPs work very hard - my understanding is that Diane Abbott is one such example - and I'm all for providing them with the proper back up of researchers and staff (I was going to call this a 'private office', which it is commonly called, but actually I don't think that's a very appropriate phrase). |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Jul 13, 3:15*pm, "Recliner" wrote: "Martin Edwards" wrote: Recliner wrote: "Willms" wrote: *You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work? In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people, such as lawyers and accountants. Not necessarily. *It sometimes refers to moderately paid people like teachers and quite low paid people like nurses. No, I don't think so -- maybe headteachers, but not your average junior teacher, and certainly not nurses. I'm not saying they aren't dedicated, hard-working professionals, just that the colloquial British use does have a status/class/wealth implication. I was just trying to correct Luko, who seemed to think that anyone not in this vaguely defined this category is therefore being insulted in some way. I also made the point that this was UK usage; it's different in the US. And I'm agreeing with Luko that the colloquial British usage of the term is crap, and furthermore is actually perhaps something of a foil for talking about class, status and wealth in an indirect fashion - and is therefore worth challenging, rather than benignly accepting. There's a whole number of common phrases that I avoid for various reasons, one being that I think they carry with them a whole subtext, another reason being that I think they';re intellectually lazy, and yet another reason being that I think the phrase is stupid and doesn't make any sense. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:53:57 +0200, "Willms"
wrote: Am Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:47:46 UTC, schrieb "Recliner" auf uk.railway : I have to charge VAT even on things like reimbursed public transport fares that are not themselves subject to VAT. interesting. In Germany, different rates of VAT apply depending on if its long distance (full rate, 19%) or regional which is supposed to be a public service (lower rate, 7%). Public transport in the UK is subject to VAT but at 0%:- http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/start/introduction.htm which also has a paragraph "The difference between exempt and zero-rated" although some of our resident VAT-handlers might be able to improve on the explanation as the HMRC page does not really say much about those who might "buy" at 0% but then have to charge their own customers at a non-zero rate. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Recliner wrote:
"Martin Edwards" wrote in message Recliner wrote: "Willms" wrote in message Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:57:05 UTC, schrieb Tony Polson auf uk.railway : You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability of using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums than the already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise professional people's long distance daily commute. You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work? In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people, such as lawyers and accountants. Not necessarily. It sometimes refers to moderately paid people like teachers and quite low paid people like nurses. No, I don't think so -- maybe headteachers, but not your average junior teacher, and certainly not nurses. I'm not saying they aren't dedicated, hard-working professionals, just that the colloquial British use does have a status/class/wealth implication. I was just trying to correct Luko, who seemed to think that anyone not in this vaguely defined this category is therefore being insulted in some way. I also made the point that this was UK usage; it's different in the US. There is a kind of shell game involved. They are professions when the employers are trying to get something for nothing out of them, but the matter is forgotten when a pay claim comes up. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:15 pm, "Recliner" wrote: "Martin Edwards" wrote: Recliner wrote: "Willms" wrote: You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work? In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people, such as lawyers and accountants. Not necessarily. It sometimes refers to moderately paid people like teachers and quite low paid people like nurses. No, I don't think so -- maybe headteachers, but not your average junior teacher, and certainly not nurses. I'm not saying they aren't dedicated, hard-working professionals, just that the colloquial British use does have a status/class/wealth implication. I was just trying to correct Luko, who seemed to think that anyone not in this vaguely defined this category is therefore being insulted in some way. I also made the point that this was UK usage; it's different in the US. And I'm agreeing with Luko that the colloquial British usage of the term is crap, and furthermore is actually perhaps something of a foil for talking about class, status and wealth in an indirect fashion - and is therefore worth challenging, rather than benignly accepting. There's a whole number of common phrases that I avoid for various reasons, one being that I think they carry with them a whole subtext, another reason being that I think they';re intellectually lazy, and yet another reason being that I think the phrase is stupid and doesn't make any sense. I agree. When I was a teacher, I often tried to point out the incongruity of the term with our pay and, especially, conditions, but to no avail. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:53:57 +0200, "Willms" wrote: Am Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:47:46 UTC, schrieb "Recliner" auf uk.railway : I have to charge VAT even on things like reimbursed public transport fares that are not themselves subject to VAT. interesting. In Germany, different rates of VAT apply depending on if its long distance (full rate, 19%) or regional which is supposed to be a public service (lower rate, 7%). Public transport in the UK is subject to VAT but at 0%:- http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/start/introduction.htm which also has a paragraph "The difference between exempt and zero-rated" although some of our resident VAT-handlers might be able to improve on the explanation as the HMRC page does not really say much about those who might "buy" at 0% but then have to charge their own customers at a non-zero rate. If you are providing a service it being zero-rated is much better because the government repays you all the input VAT you pay out. If you are exempt you still have to pay it. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:53:57 +0200, "Willms" wrote: Am Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:47:46 UTC, schrieb "Recliner" auf uk.railway : I have to charge VAT even on things like reimbursed public transport fares that are not themselves subject to VAT. interesting. In Germany, different rates of VAT apply depending on if its long distance (full rate, 19%) or regional which is supposed to be a public service (lower rate, 7%). Public transport in the UK is subject to VAT but at 0%:- http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/start/introduction.htm which also has a paragraph "The difference between exempt and zero-rated" although some of our resident VAT-handlers might be able to improve on the explanation as the HMRC page does not really say much about those who might "buy" at 0% but then have to charge their own customers at a non-zero rate. The point is that the travel by train or plane has a zero VAT rate, but the service I bill my customer for has a standard VAT rate (currently 15%), regardless of the VAT rates on the inputs. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
"Mizter T" wrote in message
On Jul 13, 3:15 pm, "Recliner" wrote: "Martin Edwards" wrote: Recliner wrote: "Willms" wrote: You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work? In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people, such as lawyers and accountants. Not necessarily. It sometimes refers to moderately paid people like teachers and quite low paid people like nurses. No, I don't think so -- maybe headteachers, but not your average junior teacher, and certainly not nurses. I'm not saying they aren't dedicated, hard-working professionals, just that the colloquial British use does have a status/class/wealth implication. I was just trying to correct Luko, who seemed to think that anyone not in this vaguely defined this category is therefore being insulted in some way. I also made the point that this was UK usage; it's different in the US. And I'm agreeing with Luko that the colloquial British usage of the term is crap, and furthermore is actually perhaps something of a foil for talking about class, status and wealth in an indirect fashion - and is therefore worth challenging, rather than benignly accepting. There's a whole number of common phrases that I avoid for various reasons, one being that I think they carry with them a whole subtext, another reason being that I think they';re intellectually lazy, and yet another reason being that I think the phrase is stupid and doesn't make any sense. I don't disagree with you, and it wasn't me who used the term. I was simply explaining the subtle British (mis)use of a term to Luko, who had quite reasonably assumed it had the literal English meaning. As you say, there are many other British class-based terms that confuse even other native English speakers, for example: - "Public" schools, which are actually expensive private schools. This really confuses Americans, for whom public schools are the free ones provided by the state. - "Middle class", which actually refers to rather well-off and often snobby people (similar to "professionals"), not the middle-income group that foreigners might reasonably assume. - "Working class", many of whom don't actually work (as exemplified in the recent Prescott documentary). We also hand out large numbers of medals for membership (etc) of the non-existent British Empire, and life-long (but no longer hereditary) grand titles to retired or would-be politicians, as well as to large donors to political parties. I though it a particular scandal that the disgraced Michael Martin almost immediately becomes Lord Martin. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message , at 10:57:22 on
Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked: As you say, there are many other British class-based terms that confuse even other native English speakers, for example: - "Public" schools, which are actually expensive private schools. This really confuses Americans, for whom public schools are the free ones provided by the state. Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay etc) just like "public transport". -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message
, at 16:03:33 on Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Mizter T remarked: Looking down the list and picking the first person as my random example: Ms Diane Abbott claimed around £131k, *none* of which was for a second home.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm If they ran their offices as self-employed businesses, they would, but I don't doubt that they exempted themselves (not to save money, but just to simplify their paperwork). In fact, I don't know if the money for things like staff costs isn't paid directly to the staff, rather than via the MP's books. One of the proposed changes is that the staff will be paid direct from Westminster. (Which sounds to me like something that will require a whole new layer of admin, so they can be assured what hours those people have actually worked). Which is fine by me, if it stops dodgy MPs 'employing' their children who somehow do all the work whilst they're 300 miles away at university, and other such scams. It's odd how one is usually deafened by "can't you do teleworking" all over Usenet, and yet in this instance suddenly only working at the MP's elbow will do! I don't condone the scams, obviously, but how a central paymaster can monitor who is doing what and where is obviously quite tricky. If it was just a a matter of the MP signing off a timesheet, then we aren't any further forward. Some MPs work very hard - my understanding is that Diane Abbott is one such example I picked her only because she's first in the alphabetical list. - and I'm all for providing them with the proper back up of researchers and staff (I was going to call this a 'private office', which it is commonly called, but actually I don't think that's a very appropriate phrase). The MP has a public office (of MP) and people in his private office assist him. Sounds like riddles, I know. -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Jul 14, 1:43*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:57:22 on Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked: As you say, there are many other British class-based terms that confuse even other native English speakers, for example: - "Public" schools, which are actually expensive private schools. This really confuses Americans, for whom public schools are the free ones provided by the state. Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay etc) just like "public transport". You don't have to pass a formal intelligence or aptitude test as such before being allowed on public transport though - the qualifier there being mainly related to fares I'd say! (But also to other more basic stuff like understanding the timetable, buying tickets before boarding, reading the sometimes inadequate signage and instructions etc.) Of course some "public schools" seem as though they'll take any child whose parents can cross their palms with silver. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message , at 18:55:04
on Mon, 13 Jul 2009, remarked: MPs' staff salaries are already paid by Parliament (says he looking at wife's payslip). They are employed by the MPs, though. The plan is for Parliament to employ the staff. This is leading to utter confusion on how MPs decide who works for them. Won't they decide the same was as now? Then tell Parliament. The problem is, how is that better than the current scheme? -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message
, at 08:33:49 on Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Mizter T remarked: Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay etc) just like "public transport". Of course some "public schools" seem as though they'll take any child whose parents can cross their palms with silver. This thread seems to be suffering from the impression that Public Schools have severe entry requirements. Some might, but not all of them. -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote: In message , at 18:55:04 on Mon, 13 Jul 2009, remarked: MPs' staff salaries are already paid by Parliament (says he looking at wife's payslip). They are employed by the MPs, though. The plan is for Parliament to employ the staff. This is leading to utter confusion on how MPs decide who works for them. Won't they decide the same was as now? Then tell Parliament. The problem is, how is that better than the current scheme? You'd think so, wouldn't you? Apparently someone in the Parliamentary bureaucracy thinks otherwise and there is a real danger the scheme will be substantially worse. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Jul 14, 9:18*pm, wrote: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: In message , at 18:55:04 on Mon, 13 Jul 2009, remarked: MPs' staff salaries are already paid by Parliament (says he looking at wife's payslip). They are employed by the MPs, though. The plan is for Parliament to employ the staff. This is leading to utter confusion on how MPs decide who works for them. Won't they decide the same was as now? Then tell Parliament. The problem is, how is that better than the current scheme? You'd think so, wouldn't you? Apparently someone in the Parliamentary bureaucracy thinks otherwise and there is a real danger the scheme will be substantially worse. So speaketh a small c conservative.... |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:33:49 on Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Mizter T remarked: Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay etc) just like "public transport". Of course some "public schools" seem as though they'll take any child whose parents can cross their palms with silver. This thread seems to be suffering from the impression that Public Schools have severe entry requirements. Some might, but not all of them. And, as you are in the process of explaining, hence the term 'public', as opposed to the only other schools which existed before them, the grammar schools (although i'm not sure if they were called that then), which had entrance exams (and mostly still do). tom -- Everyone has to die sooner or later, whether they be killed by germs, crushed by a collapsing house, or blown to smithereens by an atom bomb. -- Mao Zedong |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
|
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In Roland Perry writes:
In message , at 10:57:22 on Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked: - "Public" schools, which are actually expensive private schools. This really confuses Americans, for whom public schools are the free ones provided by the state. Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay etc) just like "public transport". But so, usually, are "private schools" :-) . -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In i Tom Anderson writes:
And, as you are in the process of explaining, hence the term 'public', as opposed to the only other schools which existed before them, the grammar schools (although i'm not sure if they were called that then), which had entrance exams (and mostly still do). Strictly speaking, I think the term "public school" is defined as A private school whose headmaster (or now mistress) is a member of the Headmasters' Conference. There may also be a requirement/expectation that it is a not-for-profit (and likely also a registered charity). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Recliner wrote:
As you say, there are many other British class-based terms that confuse even other native English speakers, for example: - "Public" schools, which are actually expensive private schools. This really confuses Americans, for whom public schools are the free ones provided by the state. Well they in turn confuse us with "prep school" (and "preppie" for someone who's been to one) as in the US these schools are for getting people into prestigious universities whereas in the UK they're for c6-13 to get them into the public and higher private schools. We also hand out large numbers of medals for membership (etc) of the non-existent British Empire, I know the name's not mentioned but don't our overseas territories and possesions still count? I saw one explanation of time zones that shows the sun still hasn't set on it! I though it a particular scandal that the disgraced Michael Martin almost immediately becomes Lord Martin. Blame your MP for that one. Retiring Speakers get a peerage not on the recommendation of the government but because the House of Commons passes a resolution to directly ask the monarch to give them one. The motion always goes through unopposed. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Charles Lindsey wrote:
Strictly speaking, I think the term "public school" is defined as A private school whose headmaster (or now mistress) is a member of the Headmasters' Conference. There may also be a requirement/expectation that it is a not-for-profit (and likely also a registered charity). There isn't a single universal definition and it's confused further by a lot of the schools in question seemingly going out of their way to avoid using the term and instead declaring they are an "independent school", which is really synonomous with "private school". Not all private schools are in the HMC, which also contains some non private schools (e.g. the London Oratory). And not all are registered charities - a significant number (including my old prep school) are run as businesses by Cognita. A "public school" is generally one that teaches from about 13 upwards, with the earlier tiers being "preparatory school" (or "prep school") from about c7-13 (called prepatory because they are preparing pupils for the entrance exams) and "pre-prep" from c3-7. Note this contrasts with the US where "prep schools" are for university preparation (a specific concept that doesn't really exist in the UK) and in their class system ex prep school pupils occupy a similar place to "public school old boys". However not all c13 upwards private schools are considered "public schools" - it's very rare to hear the term used for any all-girls school. And quite a lot of people will argue that a particular school is or isn't a "public school" on the basis of one list or another, usually from the 19th century (thus excluding all 20th and 21st century establishments) such as the Clarendon Commission or the Public Schools Yearbook. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote However not all c13 upwards private schools are considered "public schools" - it's very rare to hear the term used for any all-girls school. Though many of the top independent girls' day schools come under the aegis of the Girls Public Day Schools Trust. Peter |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Peter Masson wrote:
However not all c13 upwards private schools are considered "public schools" - it's very rare to hear the term used for any all-girls school. Though many of the top independent girls' day schools come under the aegis of the Girls Public Day Schools Trust. ....which dropped "Public" from its title back in 1998. Most of the GDST schools have a much broader age range from about 3 to 18, reflecting different arrangements in the girls' private sector (I think these were largely driven by the GDST itself). "Public Day School" is a phrase that seems to be almost exclusively linked to the GDST and of course these are day schools whereas public schools have traditionally been associated with boarding. It all just adds to the chaos and confusion. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message , at 09:30:24 on Wed, 15 Jul
2009, Charles Lindsey remarked: Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay etc) just like "public transport". But so, usually, are "private schools" :-) Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport? -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Jul 15, 3:16*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:30:24 on Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Charles Lindsey remarked: Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay etc) just like "public transport". But so, usually, are "private schools" :-) Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport? Yes. And No. Hope everyone's satisfied with that answer! |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In Roland Perry writes:
Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport? Not unless you can walk up to one in the street and request immediate transport to some destination (i.e. unless it is a "Hackney Carriage"). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message , at 15:54:36 on Thu, 16 Jul
2009, Charles Lindsey remarked: Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport? Not unless you can walk up to one in the street and request immediate transport to some destination (i.e. unless it is a "Hackney Carriage"). Can you walk up to a railway station and "hail" a train for immediate transport in the same way? I think not. The important property of "Public" transport, is that anyone [with money] can use it. But sometimes you have to book it in advance. -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message , Recliner
writes Public transport in the UK is subject to VAT but at 0%:- http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/start/introduction.htm which also has a paragraph "The difference between exempt and zero-rated" although some of our resident VAT-handlers might be able to improve on the explanation as the HMRC page does not really say much about those who might "buy" at 0% but then have to charge their own customers at a non-zero rate. The point is that the travel by train or plane has a zero VAT rate, but the service I bill my customer for has a standard VAT rate (currently 15%), regardless of the VAT rates on the inputs. 15%? Isn't VAT 17.5%? -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On Jul 16, 4:54*pm, "Charles Lindsey" wrote: In Roland Perry writes: Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport? Not unless you can walk up to one in the street and request immediate transport to some destination (i.e. unless it is a "Hackney Carriage"). Erm, back in the day in the London of pre-minicab regulation that was nonetheless a very common occurrence (much to the ire of black cab aka Hackney Carriage drivers), and it's hardly unknown today either. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
"Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote in message
In message , Recliner writes Public transport in the UK is subject to VAT but at 0%:- http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/start/introduction.htm which also has a paragraph "The difference between exempt and zero-rated" although some of our resident VAT-handlers might be able to improve on the explanation as the HMRC page does not really say much about those who might "buy" at 0% but then have to charge their own customers at a non-zero rate. The point is that the travel by train or plane has a zero VAT rate, but the service I bill my customer for has a standard VAT rate (currently 15%), regardless of the VAT rates on the inputs. 15%? Isn't VAT 17.5%? No |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "Steve Fitzgerald" ] wrote 15%? Isn't VAT 17.5%? No Temporarily reduced from 17.5% for just over a year from December 2008 to December 2009. This was suggested by former Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke as a way of reducing the effect of the recession; the Labour Government jumped at the idea without thinking it through themselves; and the Tory Opposition now says it was a stupid idea that isn't working. Peter |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:54 pm, "Charles Lindsey" wrote: In Roland Perry writes: Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport? Not unless you can walk up to one in the street and request immediate transport to some destination (i.e. unless it is a "Hackney Carriage"). Erm, back in the day in the London of pre-minicab regulation that was nonetheless a very common occurrence (much to the ire of black cab aka Hackney Carriage drivers), and it's hardly unknown today either. The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been convicted of no rapes since coming to this country. By contrast, London taxis have numerous features which serve no interest to the driver but serve the interest of the city as a whole - the tight turning circle which approximately doubles the cost of the vehicle but prevents London from being permanently gridlocked being the most obvious one. Certain minicab companies march short distance passengers to the nearest taxi rank in the knowledge that the taxis are legally compelled to take these money-losing rides. By increasing the proportion of money-losing rides picked up at that rank, they deter taxis from using that rank in future, ultimately bankrupting and emptying the taxi rank. This allows the minicab company to then take back those short rides but charge much more than the taxis used to charge, GBP20 now being the minimum fare for some minicab companies at night - if the passenger can fit in a car, that is, those wheelchair users can all go to hell once the taxis are gone. The minicab ethos is about as far from the public transport ethos as you can get. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On 17 July, 12:46, "Basil Jet"
wrote: Mizter T wrote: On Jul 16, 4:54 pm, "Charles Lindsey" wrote: In Roland Perry writes: Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport? Not unless you can walk up to one in the street and request immediate transport to some destination (i.e. unless it is a "Hackney Carriage"). Erm, back in the day in the London of pre-minicab regulation that was nonetheless a very common occurrence (much to the ire of black cab aka Hackney Carriage drivers), and it's hardly unknown today either. The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been convicted of no rapes since coming to this country. By contrast, London taxis have numerous features which serve no interest to the driver but serve the interest of the city as a whole - the tight turning circle which approximately doubles the cost of the vehicle but prevents London from being permanently gridlocked being the most obvious one. Certain minicab companies march short distance passengers to the nearest taxi rank in the knowledge that the taxis are legally compelled to take these money-losing rides. By increasing the proportion of money-losing rides picked up at that rank, they deter taxis from using that rank in future, ultimately bankrupting and emptying the taxi rank. This allows the minicab company to then take back those short rides but charge much more than the taxis used to charge, GBP20 now being the minimum fare for some minicab companies at night - if the passenger can fit in a car, that is, those wheelchair users can all go to hell once the taxis are gone. The minicab ethos is about as far from the public transport ethos as you can get. Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests. The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is Evil. |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
In message
, at 05:59:59 on Fri, 17 Jul 2009, MIG remarked: Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests. The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is Evil. So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets bought in advance etc) if they cease trading? -- Roland Perry |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
In message , at 05:59:59 on Fri, 17 Jul 2009, MIG remarked: Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests. The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is Evil. So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets bought in advance etc) if they cease trading? Obviously that won't happen, but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be some messy transfer of all of these to the new company? |
HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
On 17 July, 14:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 05:59:59 on Fri, 17 Jul 2009, MIG remarked: Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests. The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is Evil. So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets bought in advance etc) if they cease trading? That's an excellent example of the Good that the Market has to offer to Customers. Other examples welcome. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk