Tell you what I’ll do as a …‘‘washer woman’’.
I’ll get some tips off the lefty ''bed wetters off the Trump thread and the old Brexit thread and get back to you.
I’m all for commenting on or criticising other members on here, especially when it’s done to me…bring it on, I love it…and I do it myself to others
But when I do I also try and make a relavant comment also.. or give my OWN opinion on the thread subject to back up that criticism.
Otherwise I would come across as looking a bit impotent or stupid… as you have just illustrated for me in fact.
it only annoyed the remoaners that wanted rid of boris anyone else could see he went to get his eyes tested at a private ophthalmologist. did he bend the rules… slightly but a lot less than everyone else did. You can tell the level of their true outrage by their comments about starmer and co
Johnson quit as an MP before he was punished by the House of Commons. He could have stood for re-election but chose not to do so immediately and later on too.
He was about to be punished by the HoC not for wine and cheese, but for lying to the HoC.
(Yes I expect some chuntering about how all politicians lie, but that is only a half truth.)
The HoC standards committee.
Johnson was not a victim of any plot. He quit when the going got tough. It got tough for him, because he told lies to those who didn’t put up with them.
He is one of those people who was great at being popular, and at winning votes. He was also good at getting cash.
As a worker and achieving anything worthwhile? Nah.
Well, if anyone was in any doubt, that makes it easy to see where you stand on facts and the real world.
he was pushed out by his own party because of all the chuntering about party gate etc. I suppose in your eyes thatcher didnt quit because of the pressure to do so.
why should he. he was vilified for trying to make the country great again and delt with an unprecedented pandemic. Not to mention all the bed wetters that had their feelings hurt because he managed to do in less than 18 months what others couldnt. If he came back into politics all the lefty cry babies would be up in arms why do it. he has gone off to do what all the other prime ministers have done.
so why hasnt starmer been halled in front of them repeatedly for all his lies?
the going didnt get tough… tough was dealing with covid. tough was putting up with all the back snipping from the thick woke lefties that would vote to cut their own feet off rather than see anything he said work. As i have said about trump why is anyone surprised that he isnt interested in working with the british government when all they have done is cry and moan about him. It stinks of self entitled cry babies.
because he did what he said and said what he meant. his down fall as i said before is he underestimated the stupidity of the woke left cry babies. As i said before rather than pandering to them and being all nicey nicey he should of put his foot down and said “look you daft gits stay indoors means stay indoors unless you are on this very specific list or have a medical appointment”
here is a list of 100 indian owned companies Top 100 Indian Companies there are 474 more. Imagine all those british people out of work their jobs replaced by indians that dont have to pay into the system.
One has to wonder why the conservatives couldnt come to a deal in a little over 2 years but starmer did in 9 months. what has he given away that the conservatives wouldnt.
What does that sentence mean?
That there are 574 Indian companies in the top 100? That India has 574 companies?
Your imagination is just that. Little to do with reality.
That Indians, temporarily employed in the UK by their parent Indian company, are exempt from one part of the UK system is a concession, that is true. But no one could realistically say that they pay nothing into the system.
That is a reasonable question. Maybe the UK has changed, but equally maybe the Indians have changed their stance too. Trump is changing world trade patterns all over the place, maybe that is relevant here?
did you go to a local comp or grammer school if the latter i would ask for my money back if they didnt teach you basic comprehension.
for those with a comprehension level of a 3 yr old. aka the lefty liberal that make issues were there are none… there are 474 more indian owned companies with a base in the uk.
ok so according to you with all present evidence that you your self have complained about you think they are going to pay approx 20% more for each employee when they can bring their own workers in. Yeah that sounds like reality… again for the 3yr old level of comprehension that is sarcasm.
You also expect them to pay into british bank accounts when they can pay less tax by paying them into an indian bank account and then transfer the money and not pay any tax into the british treasury . A fact that when Mrs sunak did it you went on about for 2 weeks. It got to the point that when you disappeared for a week i was considering getting the police to trace you and do a welfare check in case it had all got too much and you had topped yourself.
the uk has changed it now has some complete imbecile in charge that is hell bent on screwing british people over any way he can but thats what i said in the first place. If the indians attitude has changed then if they werent given anything in return then it just proves they were being dogmatic something that you keep accusing trump of and say he shouldnt be trusted because of it. so using your logic if it was the indans that changed they shouldnt be trusted. therefore you must be against it or a hypocrite.
Then why have a list of the top 100 Indian companies in India? What has that to do with anything?
What do you mean by “Indian owned companies”?
Companies who operate in the UK. Or who are on the UK stock market? Have a branch in the UK or their head office here?
Indian nationals who live in the UK or who live abroad?
What are you talking about?
Are the laws governing bringing in Indian nations being changed? Where are the details of that?
Mrs Sunak was paying tax legally and according to the system in existence. Not one I agreed with, but legal none the less.
Paying wages into foreign accounts and hiding income sounds like evasion, not avoidance.
Upl ltd has a base in Britain
National Fertilizers Ltd has a base in Britain
chamber fertilizers and chemicals has a base in Britain
can you see the pattern yet or do i have to go through all 100 of them.
Have you been beaten up yet for walking around with your underpants over the top of your trousers.
the links i posted plus…
except there will be nothing temporary about it
exactly she was working for an indian company (her own) and being paid a salary by that inidan company into her indian bank account. she paid tax at what ever level is relevant in india to the indian treasury or equivalent then transferred the funds to a british bank account.
@franglais Not just India. 130 other countries I think. I have heard of this agreement before. My late father was using it from what I understood at the time
Yes many countries including the UK have rules and treaties whereby workers are taxed in only one country rather than be taxed twice. I think the US is a bit different in that any US passport holder must pay income tax in the US no matter where they live or earn money? I could be wrong about that, just off the top of my head.
The new regs seem to be about company contributions to National Insurance rather than Income Tax. They seem to only apply to workers who are here up to 3years. (Those who will not be expecting to claim their UK state pension etc.)
Mrs Sunak was paying UK tax legally under the Non Dom rules. She paid a fixed amount each year instead of being assessed for tax because she was not Domiciled in the UK. Those ri9les have now been ended by the current Gov.
The idea that one need only pay tax in one country still exist.
There is a trade deal made with India, but without detail who knows if it is a good or a bad one?
The stopping of company NI payments, for a small number of employees, temporarily in the UK, seems quite minor to me.
According to your mate Starmer, with his gushing enthusiasm, it’s the best deal since Warburtons bought a slicer.
So more spin without substance then..
Same old same old.
sorry i keep expecting you to understand plain english.
the new regs say the company and the employee doesnt have to pay stamp for three years. issue 1. issue 2 is they wont have to pay tax either. indian company paying an inidan person into an indian bank account pays tax in india regardless of where he is working. same as a british person working for a british company would pay tax in britain just like your it mates you were banging on about the other week.
issue 3 british jobs are lost to indian workers that dont contribute to the british tax system at all.
The UK and India have a reciprocal income tax agreement. It is designed to stop double taxation. It does not apply to all countries.
The idea is that UK workers temporarily abroad still pay into the UK system, and equally Indian workers temporarily abroad pay into their system.
The UK India one has been around since 1993.
Good or bad, It is nothing new at all.
.