"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.

"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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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....

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