Max Wrote (Quoted from recession thread)
OK Ben, I have looked at that link and I think it's just your interpretation that the Revenue don't bother with evasion under £10,000...just like your interpretation of the hairdressers appointment book and the petrol station VAT receipts.
I think the personal questions I asked were very valid. I was attempting to ascertain as to how much your comments were based on informed experience and knowledge and how much on left wing bollox lifted straight from the Socialist Worker!
If I was to make a sweeping generalisation that all recipients of benefits were scroungers, I would be flamed, and quite rightly so but you have made an equally sweeping generalisation that all employers are exploitative. You also made an ill informed comment on the world of accountancy being involved in "deeply corrupt practices involved in professional tax evasion". Tax evasion is illegal and a criminal offence. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, there is a world of difference between legitimate tax AVOIDANCE and tax EVASION. I was asking as to how long you worked in the accounting profession as you seem to have little real understanding of it.
As you are highly critical of the current system, I asked you what you would suggest as a workable alternative. You have not answered and therefore I must assume that you don't have one.
As someone once said, Capitalism may not be the perfect but its the best system we have come up with yet.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Tax Evasion
last reply
57 replies
2.4k views
0 watchers
0 likes
The instruction in the revenue and customs internal manual appears to only refer to frauds over £10,000. I dont think I have twisted the presented information, can you explain how you think I have done so.
The pencil written appointments books and the like are simply the tip of the iceberg. My advice to anybody who cares about making money is get off PAYE as soon as you can.
I still don't think personal information has any relevance to a debate. What is it likely to do? Reinforce your prejudices? Lets face it, its unlikely to break them down regardless of my background and I dont feel the need to justify my opinions by claiming expertise. For the record I don't think Ive ever read the socialist worker.
I think I have explained why I think employment is fundamentally exploitation. What more can I say?
The line between tax evasion/avoidance is a thin one. Even the revenue clamp down on legal avoidance where possible. In support of this argument I cite the materials available on the revenue and customs web site-just search avoidance.
A viable workable alternative. I dont have one. That doesnt mean that one doesnt exist or that we shouldnt discuss the current arrangements. Here is something I culled from a political party site.
"Many people are forced to work too hard or too long, leaving little or no time for children, home and family. Too much work is meaningless and unsatisfying, while some work is unsafe, therefore damaging workers health. Other work is insecure, making people vulnerable to redundancy often brought about by intense competition and globalisation within companies and workplaces.
Despite the fact that many people have too much work, there are others who cannot gain employment because it is said they are too old, lack skills or live in the wrong location.
Everyone would receive a basic Citizen's Income to allow everybody to make meaningful choices between paid employment, part-time work, self employment, volunteering and encourage a better balance between work and everyday life."
Where does that quote about "Capitalism may not be the perfect but its the best system we have come up with yet". Its not very pithy is it.
The pencil written appointments books and the like are simply the tip of the iceberg. My advice to anybody who cares about making money is get off PAYE as soon as you can.
I still don't think personal information has any relevance to a debate. What is it likely to do? Reinforce your prejudices? Lets face it, its unlikely to break them down regardless of my background and I dont feel the need to justify my opinions by claiming expertise. For the record I don't think Ive ever read the socialist worker.
I think I have explained why I think employment is fundamentally exploitation. What more can I say?
The line between tax evasion/avoidance is a thin one. Even the revenue clamp down on legal avoidance where possible. In support of this argument I cite the materials available on the revenue and customs web site-just search avoidance.
A viable workable alternative. I dont have one. That doesnt mean that one doesnt exist or that we shouldnt discuss the current arrangements. Here is something I culled from a political party site.
"Many people are forced to work too hard or too long, leaving little or no time for children, home and family. Too much work is meaningless and unsatisfying, while some work is unsafe, therefore damaging workers health. Other work is insecure, making people vulnerable to redundancy often brought about by intense competition and globalisation within companies and workplaces.
Despite the fact that many people have too much work, there are others who cannot gain employment because it is said they are too old, lack skills or live in the wrong location.
Everyone would receive a basic Citizen's Income to allow everybody to make meaningful choices between paid employment, part-time work, self employment, volunteering and encourage a better balance between work and everyday life."
Where does that quote about "Capitalism may not be the perfect but its the best system we have come up with yet". Its not very pithy is it.
Fair points flower, I too was a fairly fair capitalist worker/wage slave and I'm sure beneficent employers exist. I have to say I benefited greatly from an old capitalist boss who took the view that "the workers" deserved as much of a reward for their endeavours as he did.
I was wondering earlier if HM Revenue and Customs will be prosecuting any MPs? After all a failure to declare benefits from employment is a criminal offence.
I was wondering earlier if HM Revenue and Customs will be prosecuting any MPs? After all a failure to declare benefits from employment is a criminal offence.
Quote by benrums0n
The instruction in the revenue and customs internal manual appears to only refer to frauds over £10,000. I dont think I have twisted the presented information, can you explain how you think I have done so.
The pencil written appointments books and the like are simply the tip of the iceberg. My advice to anybody who cares about making money is get off PAYE as soon as you can.
I still don't think personal information has any relevance to a debate. What is it likely to do? Reinforce your prejudices? Lets face it, its unlikely to break them down regardless of my background and I dont feel the need to justify my opinions by claiming expertise. For the record I don't think Ive ever read the socialist worker.
I think I have explained why I think employment is fundamentally exploitation. What more can I say?
The line between tax evasion/avoidance is a thin one. Even the revenue clamp down on legal avoidance where possible. In support of this argument I cite the materials available on the revenue and customs web site-just search avoidance.
A viable workable alternative. I dont have one. That doesnt mean that one doesnt exist or that we shouldnt discuss the current arrangements. Here is something I culled from a political party site.
"Many people are forced to work too hard or too long, leaving little or no time for children, home and family. Too much work is meaningless and unsatisfying, while some work is unsafe, therefore damaging workers health. Other work is insecure, making people vulnerable to redundancy often brought about by intense competition and globalisation within companies and workplaces.
Despite the fact that many people have too much work, there are others who cannot gain employment because it is said they are too old, lack skills or live in the wrong location.
Everyone would receive a basic Citizen's Income to allow everybody to make meaningful choices between paid employment, part-time work, self employment, volunteering and encourage a better balance between work and everyday life."
Where does that quote about "Capitalism may not be the perfect but its the best system we have come up with yet". Its not very pithy is it.
The instruction in the manual informs what to do if the fraud is in excess of £10,000....it does not say to ignore the fraud if it is less than that amount...that is YOUR interpretation. To be honest, I don't really understand the point you are making here anyway. You say that the MPs Expenses fiasco does not bother you, yet you are complaining that the Revenue appears not to bother with fraud under a threshold which is signifaicantly lower than that the amounts some of the politicians are being called to account for.
As for reinforcing my prejudices, it is YOUR prejudices that we are debating. You were the one that stated ALL employers exploited their staff and used emotive words such as "sacrificed", I'm attempting to bring some balance to the debate.
The line between tax avoidance and tax evasion may be a thin one but as you must know from your experience, the tax system in this country is unbelievably complex and has become increasingly so under the Chancellorship of Gordon Brown. That is why companies and individuals employ taxation experts in order to mitigate the amounts they pay. Why should they pay more than they need to....do you? You only have to look at the complexity of VAT in order to see the point I'm making. I'm old enough to remember the introduction of VAT and that it was sold as being a simple tax on sales. Now it is a very complex tax which means that even small business usually need the services of a so called taxation expert. The whole taxation system requires radical restucture but none of the political parties has either the stomach or the balls for it.
OK enough's enough.. I'm even boring myself now..........
Quote by benrums0n
The instruction in the revenue and customs internal manual appears to only refer to frauds over £10,000. I dont think I have twisted the presented information, can you explain how you think I have done so.
The pencil written appointments books and the like are simply the tip of the iceberg. My advice to anybody who cares about making money is get off PAYE as soon as you can.
I still don't think personal information has any relevance to a debate. What is it likely to do? Reinforce your prejudices? Lets face it, its unlikely to break them down regardless of my background and I dont feel the need to justify my opinions by claiming expertise. For the record I don't think Ive ever read the socialist worker.
I think I have explained why I think employment is fundamentally exploitation. What more can I say?
The line between tax evasion/avoidance is a thin one. Even the revenue clamp down on legal avoidance where possible. In support of this argument I cite the materials available on the revenue and customs web site-just search avoidance.
A viable workable alternative. I dont have one. That doesnt mean that one doesnt exist or that we shouldnt discuss the current arrangements. Here is something I culled from a political party site.
"Many people are forced to work too hard or too long, leaving little or no time for children, home and family. Too much work is meaningless and unsatisfying, while some work is unsafe, therefore damaging workers health. Other work is insecure, making people vulnerable to redundancy often brought about by intense competition and globalisation within companies and workplaces.
Despite the fact that many people have too much work, there are others who cannot gain employment because it is said they are too old, lack skills or live in the wrong location.
Everyone would receive a basic Citizen's Income to allow everybody to make meaningful choices between paid employment, part-time work, self employment, volunteering and encourage a better balance between work and everyday life."
Where does that quote about "Capitalism may not be the perfect but its the best system we have come up with yet". Its not very pithy is it.
The first point is a comment that quite frankly is from la la land.
The second comment is also in the same bracket. It would be sooooo wonderful if we all got that " citizens income ". Where does that money come from exactly? The tax payer I would presume.
The very people that think that work is " meaningless and unsatisfying " ?
I would think that with that new found benefit, would also come a whole host of people, that would just take the benefit, and then stop working all together.
What a wonderful world it would be if nobody had to work, but could continue to still have all the lovely things in life that money brings.
I instead of working hard to get my 50 inch tv, could have got one for free, on the "new hand it out for free charter".
I really really wonder sometimes...... :shock:
Quote by benrums0n
My Qi Gong master once told me that wonder is one of the early steps to enlightenment. Theres hope for us all Kent.
My old maths teacher told me " 2+2=4 ". The reasoning behind maths is something we take through our lives.
The Government are skint, people are losing their jobs. Where is this new found money for the " new benefit " going to come from exactly?
We already have a massive benefit culture going on. The welfare budget is huge as it is. I do not understand where in the life of me, this can work.
Do you not think that I would love to be able to work part time, for the same money? That would be wonderful and I bet millions of other people would love to do that too but....that is fantasy believing. The hard true facts are much more simple. People work for the money. For the nicer things in life.
I know somebody that moaned and groaned about his neighbour getting his second new car in three years. The person with the car works six days a week, his wife works as well. The person moaning has not worked for three years yet seems to think he should be entitled to the same things in life, that his neighbour has. What strange thinking.
I work for some simple reasons. To be able to have some nice things in my life. A nice car, my total extravagance of a bike which I hardly use. Five grands worth sitting there doing nothing. A nice holiday, and a nice home with nice things in it.
Buying something that I have worked hard for is total satisfaction, which in turn makes me proud. If I decided to take a " holiday " and work two days a week, that I am afraid as my maths teacher would say " 2+2=4 ", just would not add up.
I see things in life as what you put in is what you get out. Working brings people many things, not working brings you much fewer things. That is life as it should be, not viewing it through rose tinted goggles.
Thank you Kent.
I think the money comes from the people who have lots of money and is given to the people who have lots less money. I think if you combine this with a taxation overhaul and budget cuts as appropriate (dont get me started on Trident et al) we would be able to find the money.
I value work by what it contributes to society. I dont have any problem with somebody getting a decent level of income for doing nothing as you describe it, simply because there are millions of people who earn vast fortunes for doing nothing as I would describe it.
I understand that you are satisfied with the existing system and that of course is your right. I think the majority of employees are not rewarded fairly for their contribution to society and their employers are often habitual tax fraudsters and neither of these issues seems to be discussed by the big two political parties.
It saddens me that this Tory government led by the evil twins Blair and Brown wears the labels of a once proud socialist organisation that working people had to fight to establish over many years. Mind you that said they have sneaked in a few socialist policies when nobody was looking.
As for the official Torys-have they decided just what they are yet? Last time I looked at their policies they were hinting at bringing back work houses.
" * Every claimant potentially able to work will be engaged in welfare to work activities aimed at helping them back into work as quickly as possible
* For those unable to find work there'll be long-term community projects to help them get back into a working environment
* Those not willing to take part will face tough sanctions "
With the forthcoming European Elections I am pleased that there are one or two alternative options. Although sadly, given their resources and spin I fear the BNP will do rather well.
I think the money comes from the people who have lots of money and is given to the people who have lots less money. I think if you combine this with a taxation overhaul and budget cuts as appropriate (dont get me started on Trident et al) we would be able to find the money.
I value work by what it contributes to society. I dont have any problem with somebody getting a decent level of income for doing nothing as you describe it, simply because there are millions of people who earn vast fortunes for doing nothing as I would describe it.
I understand that you are satisfied with the existing system and that of course is your right. I think the majority of employees are not rewarded fairly for their contribution to society and their employers are often habitual tax fraudsters and neither of these issues seems to be discussed by the big two political parties.
It saddens me that this Tory government led by the evil twins Blair and Brown wears the labels of a once proud socialist organisation that working people had to fight to establish over many years. Mind you that said they have sneaked in a few socialist policies when nobody was looking.
As for the official Torys-have they decided just what they are yet? Last time I looked at their policies they were hinting at bringing back work houses.
" * Every claimant potentially able to work will be engaged in welfare to work activities aimed at helping them back into work as quickly as possible
* For those unable to find work there'll be long-term community projects to help them get back into a working environment
* Those not willing to take part will face tough sanctions "
With the forthcoming European Elections I am pleased that there are one or two alternative options. Although sadly, given their resources and spin I fear the BNP will do rather well.
Quote by benrums0n
Thank you Kent.
I think the money comes from the people who have lots of money and is given to the people who have lots less money. I think if you combine this with a taxation overhaul and budget cuts as appropriate (dont get me started on Trident et al) we would be able to find the money.
I value work by what it contributes to society. I dont have any problem with somebody getting a decent level of income for doing nothing as you describe it, simply because there are millions of people who earn vast fortunes for doing nothing as I would describe it.
I understand that you are satisfied with the existing system and that of course is your right. I think the majority of employees are not rewarded fairly for their contribution to society and their employers are often habitual tax fraudsters and neither of these issues seems to be discussed by the big two political parties.
It saddens me that this Tory government led by the evil twins Blair and Brown wears the labels of a once proud socialist organisation that working people had to fight to establish over many years. Mind you that said they have sneaked in a few socialist policies when nobody was looking.
As for the official Torys-have they decided just what they are yet? Last time I looked at their policies they were hinting at bringing back work houses.
" * Every claimant potentially able to work will be engaged in welfare to work activities aimed at helping them back into work as quickly as possible
* For those unable to find work there'll be long-term community projects to help them get back into a working environment
* Those not willing to take part will face tough sanctions "
With the forthcoming European Elections I am pleased that there are one or two alternative options. Although sadly, given their resources and spin I fear the BNP will do rather well.
Did Robin Hood not die years ago?
What kind of analogy is that? Do the wealthy not already pay huge ammounts of tax, a lot of which goes towards the needy through the benefit system.
Your second point is quite frankly laughable. I do not know what bosses you have worked for, but just in case you are right....have you get any proof of that statement or is that just your opinion?
Kent in response:
What kind of analogy is that? Do the wealthy not already pay huge ammounts of tax, a lot of which goes towards the needy through the benefit system.
No the rich do not pay a huge amount of tax, they pay far too little tax and receive an income far in excess of that necessary to maintain a reasonable life style at the expense of millions of others who haven't got a pot to piddle in comparatively. You give me the impression that you think the poor are stupid ,indolent or both and deserve a shitty end of the stick. We will have to agree to differ because I don't believe either of these assertions.
Your second point is quite frankly laughable. I do not know what bosses you have worked for, but just in case you are right....have you get any proof of that statement or is that just your opinion?
If I express an opinion I try to use words like think and believe. My thoughts and beliefs are based on my life experiences and in particular listening to the the opinions of others. If I state a fact I usually provide a reference to a source. Have you got any facts to refute my opinion? Can you confirm that you have never evaded tax? (The illegal way not the legal way which Max informed me is called avoidance.)
Im enjoying this thread, I haven't felt attacked personally all the way through it.
What kind of analogy is that? Do the wealthy not already pay huge ammounts of tax, a lot of which goes towards the needy through the benefit system.
No the rich do not pay a huge amount of tax, they pay far too little tax and receive an income far in excess of that necessary to maintain a reasonable life style at the expense of millions of others who haven't got a pot to piddle in comparatively. You give me the impression that you think the poor are stupid ,indolent or both and deserve a shitty end of the stick. We will have to agree to differ because I don't believe either of these assertions.
Your second point is quite frankly laughable. I do not know what bosses you have worked for, but just in case you are right....have you get any proof of that statement or is that just your opinion?
If I express an opinion I try to use words like think and believe. My thoughts and beliefs are based on my life experiences and in particular listening to the the opinions of others. If I state a fact I usually provide a reference to a source. Have you got any facts to refute my opinion? Can you confirm that you have never evaded tax? (The illegal way not the legal way which Max informed me is called avoidance.)
Im enjoying this thread, I haven't felt attacked personally all the way through it.
Sex God
An Englishman goes on holiday to Greece and goes to the water ski shak down by the beach. The Greek man explains that he he is very busy and to come back in half an hour. Our noble Englishman suggests to the Greek man that he should write down his name and call out when it his turn, he goes further and suggests that the Greek man should make a list and call out to people as it is their turn.
The Greek man shakes his whimsically and says -
you English, you think you are so organised and so clever, but you are not. No, I won't make a list because if I make a list the tax man wants to see who is on my list and how much money I take. Then the civil police come down and ask me how long I am working to take so many people ski-ing and want to reduce our working hours. Then the local authorities want to make a rule about how often I can use my boat because of the amount of people I teach to ski and how my engine should be licensed. Then they want to make special licences for me to carry on my work - and then where will it end?
I will do my job here in Greece and you do your job in England Sir.
Yassoo
Ben - you have an idealistic and fantastical view - I wish it were possible in any country - let alone ours. The UK has probably the smallest black economy of any of our European partners what do you suggest we do? Invade - I mean colonise - them and teach them the error of their ways?
The Greek man shakes his whimsically and says -
you English, you think you are so organised and so clever, but you are not. No, I won't make a list because if I make a list the tax man wants to see who is on my list and how much money I take. Then the civil police come down and ask me how long I am working to take so many people ski-ing and want to reduce our working hours. Then the local authorities want to make a rule about how often I can use my boat because of the amount of people I teach to ski and how my engine should be licensed. Then they want to make special licences for me to carry on my work - and then where will it end?
I will do my job here in Greece and you do your job in England Sir.
Yassoo
Ben - you have an idealistic and fantastical view - I wish it were possible in any country - let alone ours. The UK has probably the smallest black economy of any of our European partners what do you suggest we do? Invade - I mean colonise - them and teach them the error of their ways?
Lovely story TooHot.
I dunno, the problem with the politics of social welfare is that there's always some bugger who doesn't get water and here I am arguing for more for somebody living on 60 quid a week. As you say there's always somebody who's more corrupt than you too.
I don't have all the answers or pretend to have them. If I did Id join the political Gravy train. It still makes me said when I meet the victims of our society though.
I dunno, the problem with the politics of social welfare is that there's always some bugger who doesn't get water and here I am arguing for more for somebody living on 60 quid a week. As you say there's always somebody who's more corrupt than you too.
I don't have all the answers or pretend to have them. If I did Id join the political Gravy train. It still makes me said when I meet the victims of our society though.
Quote by benrums0n
Thank you Kent.
I think the money comes from the people who have lots of money and is given to the people who have lots less money. I think if you combine this with a taxation overhaul and budget cuts as appropriate (dont get me started on Trident et al) we would be able to find the money.
I value work by what it contributes to society. I dont have any problem with somebody getting a decent level of income for doing nothing as you describe it, simply because there are millions of people who earn vast fortunes for doing nothing as I would describe it.
The one flaw in your "vision" is that the people who are earning all the money for doing, in your eyes, nothing would soon stop doing it. There would be no incentive. They would realise that they could sit idly on their backsides and earn the same money as those that idly sit on their backsides...and pretty soon everyone would be sitting idly on their backsides and no-one would be creating any wealth. How long would that society last?....oh btw, I agree with you on Trident!
I understand that you are satisfied with the existing system and that of course is your right. I think the majority of employees are not rewarded fairly for their contribution to society and their employers are often habitual tax fraudsters and neither of these issues seems to be discussed by the big two political parties.
You really have a jaundiced view of employers...you certainly don't need your prejudices reinforcing!! As to your later reference to my terminology re tax avoidance...I was referring to anyones right to avoid paying tax unnecessarily...and that means employers and employees alike.
It saddens me that this Tory government led by the evil twins Blair and Brown wears the labels of a once proud socialist organisation that working people had to fight to establish over many years. Mind you that said they have sneaked in a few socialist policies when nobody was looking.
As for the official Torys-have they decided just what they are yet? Last time I looked at their policies they were hinting at bringing back work houses.
Hmmmm, what was it you said earlier about not twisting things?
" * Every claimant potentially able to work will be engaged in welfare to work activities aimed at helping them back into work as quickly as possible
* For those unable to find work there'll be long-term community projects to help them get back into a working environment
* Those not willing to take part will face tough sanctions "
With the forthcoming European Elections I am pleased that there are one or two alternative options. Although sadly, given their resources and spin I fear the BNP will do rather well.
There are some great books out there regarding Communism Max.
Just a kind of world I would love to live in. Everyone gets the same, apparently.....unless you are in high office or a position of power. Then you get everything.
A bit like Capitilism really, just that more people share the wealth, as opposed to Communism where only a very small ammount share the loot.
In my world if you work hard you get the rewards, if you sit on your arse and don't have any aspirations, then you get nowt out of the system. That it seems is fair to me.
I really cannot understand the logic of an employer paying a good wage to someone, who then has to share his profits with his workers.
What is the worker sacrificing? Nothing. The employer like us have our homes on the line if it goes tits up.
IF an employer takes the gamble on a business and an employee lacks the accruments to do the same, why should the worker reap the same rewards?
Why would an employer bother with running a business if that was ever the case?
I work hard and reap the rewards, the staff get paid for doing their job. For me to share any of my profits with any staff I may have, is ludicrious and unjustifiable.
We luckily enough do not live in Cuba, or have George Galloway running the country. Btw both as mad as brushes in my opinion.
Just a kind of world I would love to live in. Everyone gets the same, apparently.....unless you are in high office or a position of power. Then you get everything.
A bit like Capitilism really, just that more people share the wealth, as opposed to Communism where only a very small ammount share the loot.
In my world if you work hard you get the rewards, if you sit on your arse and don't have any aspirations, then you get nowt out of the system. That it seems is fair to me.
I really cannot understand the logic of an employer paying a good wage to someone, who then has to share his profits with his workers.
What is the worker sacrificing? Nothing. The employer like us have our homes on the line if it goes tits up.
IF an employer takes the gamble on a business and an employee lacks the accruments to do the same, why should the worker reap the same rewards?
Why would an employer bother with running a business if that was ever the case?
I work hard and reap the rewards, the staff get paid for doing their job. For me to share any of my profits with any staff I may have, is ludicrious and unjustifiable.
We luckily enough do not live in Cuba, or have George Galloway running the country. Btw both as mad as brushes in my opinion.
Quote by Max777
They would realise that they could sit idly on their backsides and earn the same money as those that idly sit on their backsides...and pretty soon everyone would be sitting idly on their backsides and no-one would be creating any wealth.
I disagree.
If those people were sat on their backsides, they would probably be watching daytime telly, therefore creating wealth for the likes of Jeremy Kyle, as the amount of advertising revenue during his shows would skyrocket.
Therefore someone would create wealth.
I worked for a large company that treated their employees fair when I joined around 1980 it was a family business that I felt a belonging. Family members where still on the board with one as chairman. They offered yearly Christmas bonuses, share saving schemes and discounts to staff after 5 years service, people stayed and worked hard to reach their 5 years service then if you stayed 25 years there was a golden handshake to be had. After being there 18 years the family retired from the board, the company had grown hugely and the board changed. Everything was stripped back no shares given no Christmas bonuses staff discounts cut by half. But the profits were still rolling in. So where did all the profits go?
All I can assume to the top bosses to line there pockets even more, hence I left and never made my 25 years service.
It is all about greed I believe, sod the people that run things at the bottom end of the work chain, we used to think we mattered in the good old days but all we became was a number. Nobody cares anymore, as long as the rich get richer.
Today I do mostly voluntary work I don’t get paid but I feel I am appreciated and get a thanks for what I do, that to me means more than a pay packet.
Sometimes in life it is about how we can help others and not about what we can get out of it for ourselves.
Rant over sorry
All I can assume to the top bosses to line there pockets even more, hence I left and never made my 25 years service.
It is all about greed I believe, sod the people that run things at the bottom end of the work chain, we used to think we mattered in the good old days but all we became was a number. Nobody cares anymore, as long as the rich get richer.
Today I do mostly voluntary work I don’t get paid but I feel I am appreciated and get a thanks for what I do, that to me means more than a pay packet.
Sometimes in life it is about how we can help others and not about what we can get out of it for ourselves.
Rant over sorry
Quote by flower411
OK...apologies, I have reread your post and I did indeed miss your point.... I actually believe incentivising the staff can work in practice but understand where you are coming from. I was trying not to sound like a ruthless, grasping, exploitative employer
No matter ..... sometimes I get a bit funny when people think they are agreeing with me :wink:
People agree with you :shock:
Dave_Notts
I was once told something about being employed, which has stuck with me over many years.
This person told me " remember as an employee you are selling your services, and as an employer, you are buying that service ".
Now why would an employee who is selling his services, get anymore than what he agreed too at the start of his job?
Why should an employer who has brought someones services, pay them extra for doing the job he is paying them to do?
As an employee you are paid to do a job, why should you get anything over and above what was agreed at the job interview?
That is exactly the kind of attitude that unions use, or used to as they do not carry as much power as they once did.
Remember....without employers, there would be no jobs. No jobs ...no money. If someone happens to work for an employer who is generous, and members of staff get something, then that is great but.....to expect it as a right for no gamble on an employee's part is frankly la la land thinking.
This person told me " remember as an employee you are selling your services, and as an employer, you are buying that service ".
Now why would an employee who is selling his services, get anymore than what he agreed too at the start of his job?
Why should an employer who has brought someones services, pay them extra for doing the job he is paying them to do?
As an employee you are paid to do a job, why should you get anything over and above what was agreed at the job interview?
That is exactly the kind of attitude that unions use, or used to as they do not carry as much power as they once did.
Remember....without employers, there would be no jobs. No jobs ...no money. If someone happens to work for an employer who is generous, and members of staff get something, then that is great but.....to expect it as a right for no gamble on an employee's part is frankly la la land thinking.
Quote by kentswingers777
I was once told something about being employed, which has stuck with me over many years.
This person told me " remember as an employee you are selling your services, and as an employer, you are buying that service ".
Now why would an employee who is selling his services, get anymore than what he agreed too at the start of his job?
Why should an employer who has brought someones services, pay them extra for doing the job he is paying them to do?
As an employee you are paid to do a job, why should you get anything over and above what was agreed at the job interview?
That is exactly the kind of attitude that unions use, or used to as they do not carry as much power as they once did.
Remember....without employers, there would be no jobs. No jobs ...no money. If someone happens to work for an employer who is generous, and members of staff get something, then that is great but.....to expect it as a right for no gamble on an employee's part is frankly la la land thinking.
Why do you think that?
Quote by kentswingers777
I was once told something about being employed, which has stuck with me over many years.
This person told me " remember as an employee you are selling your services, and as an employer, you are buying that service ".
Now why would an employee who is selling his services, get anymore than what he agreed too at the start of his job?
Why should an employer who has brought someones services, pay them extra for doing the job he is paying them to do?
As an employee you are paid to do a job, why should you get anything over and above what was agreed at the job interview?
That is exactly the kind of attitude that unions use, or used to as they do not carry as much power as they once did.
Remember....without employers, there would be no jobs. No jobs ...no money.
If someone happens to work for an employer who is generous, and members of staff get something, then that is great but.....to expect it as a right for no gamble on an employee's part is frankly la la land thinking.
Why employ people?
What are you hoping to gain?
Surely people employ people because they can not cover all the work themselves.
In which case without the employee you would not be able to manage.
Isn't it a case of both need each other?
Quote by Theladyisaminx
I was once told something about being employed, which has stuck with me over many years.
This person told me " remember as an employee you are selling your services, and as an employer, you are buying that service ".
Now why would an employee who is selling his services, get anymore than what he agreed too at the start of his job?
Why should an employer who has brought someones services, pay them extra for doing the job he is paying them to do?
As an employee you are paid to do a job, why should you get anything over and above what was agreed at the job interview?
That is exactly the kind of attitude that unions use, or used to as they do not carry as much power as they once did.
Remember....without employers, there would be no jobs. No jobs ...no money.
If someone happens to work for an employer who is generous, and members of staff get something, then that is great but.....to expect it as a right for no gamble on an employee's part is frankly la la land thinking.
Why employ people?
What are you hoping to gain?
Surely people employ people because they can not cover all the work themselves.
In which case without the employee you would not be able to manage.
Isn't it a case of both need each other?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. We employ staff as it makes it easier all round for us. We could do without them if we really had to. Or should that be " sacrifice them " ?
Check my quote in my earlier thread Minxy.
A lot of smaller firms could do without a lot of their staff, if they really needed too, but the larger ones obviously need staff to operate their business.
If I was to employ you for say 16 grand a year, working 9 to 5 five days a week, why would you expect anything else financially?
I employ you to do a job of work, and if you do it then I pay you. The object of free enterpise is to make a profit, which hopefully is where the staff come in. Why as an employer should I feel compelled to give any more than the wages which that employee is happy with? If they are not happy there is always a big brown thing....called a door.
I pay the staff good wages, they have a pretty easy time there, why the heck would I want to share my profits with them? They may well get a bonus at Xmas. But share the profits when I am the one taking all the gambles?.....not on your nelly.
Anyone who thinks I am wrong is clearly and I mean very clearly, a wage slave.
I can understand that Kenty, I work through agencies, and there are occasions where we can negotiate a different hourly rate than usual, say £1-£2 an hour more.
Now, if a person arriving to the same worksite has negotiated £1 an hour more than me, fair play to him for negotiating that, if I am on that site for the rate thats been agreed, then that is the rate I have accepted, I certainly wouldn't ring the agency to say "how come he has x rate and I don't?"
It is down to me to get the rate I want, if I don't, thats my call.
Now, if a person arriving to the same worksite has negotiated £1 an hour more than me, fair play to him for negotiating that, if I am on that site for the rate thats been agreed, then that is the rate I have accepted, I certainly wouldn't ring the agency to say "how come he has x rate and I don't?"
It is down to me to get the rate I want, if I don't, thats my call.
Quote Kent
"Anyone who thinks I am wrong is clearly and I mean very clearly, a wage slave."
A nice new label for those of us who choose not to agree with the mighty Kent. I'm not sure what it means though which is unfortunate as I don't know whether or not to be insulted.
Did anyone notice the shift in minumum wage today. A 40 hour week is now worth about £11000 a year. How is a single bloke sposed to live on that when rents round my way are £4000 a year leaving about £50 quid a week for everything else after tax. Mind you if he was a slave rather than a "wage slave" at least he would have his shelter and food provided.
Runs away and hides. :grin:
"Anyone who thinks I am wrong is clearly and I mean very clearly, a wage slave."
A nice new label for those of us who choose not to agree with the mighty Kent. I'm not sure what it means though which is unfortunate as I don't know whether or not to be insulted.
Did anyone notice the shift in minumum wage today. A 40 hour week is now worth about £11000 a year. How is a single bloke sposed to live on that when rents round my way are £4000 a year leaving about £50 quid a week for everything else after tax. Mind you if he was a slave rather than a "wage slave" at least he would have his shelter and food provided.
Runs away and hides. :grin:
Quote by benrums0n
Quote Kent
"Anyone who thinks I am wrong is clearly and I mean very clearly, a wage slave."
A nice new label for those of us who choose not to agree with the mighty Kent. I'm not sure what it means though which is unfortunate as I don't know whether or not to be insulted.
Did anyone notice the shift in minumum wage today. A 40 hour week is now worth about £11000 a year. How is a single bloke sposed to live on that when rents round my way are £4000 a year leaving about £50 quid a week for everything else after tax. Mind you if he was a slave rather than a "wage slave" at least he would have his shelter and food provided.
Runs away and hides. :grin:
So it is going to cost that guy what he has left for a week to join a swinging site to then turn round and post that it is a waste of time?
So it is true, this swinging malarky is hard work, worth at least a week of it :mrgreen:
Quote by kentswingers777
I was once told something about being employed, which has stuck with me over many years.
This person told me " remember as an employee you are selling your services, and as an employer, you are buying that service ".
Now why would an employee who is selling his services, get anymore than what he agreed too at the start of his job?
Why should an employer who has brought someones services, pay them extra for doing the job he is paying them to do?
As an employee you are paid to do a job, why should you get anything over and above what was agreed at the job interview?
That is exactly the kind of attitude that unions use, or used to as they do not carry as much power as they once did.
Remember....without employers, there would be no jobs. No jobs ...no money.
If someone happens to work for an employer who is generous, and members of staff get something, then that is great but.....to expect it as a right for no gamble on an employee's part is frankly la la land thinking.
Why employ people?
What are you hoping to gain?
Surely people employ people because they can not cover all the work themselves.
In which case without the employee you would not be able to manage.
Isn't it a case of both need each other?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. We employ staff as it makes it easier all round for us. We could do without them if we really had to. Or should that be " sacrifice them " ?
Check my quote in my earlier thread Minxy.
A lot of smaller firms could do without a lot of their staff, if they really needed too, but the larger ones obviously need staff to operate their business.
If I was to employ you for say 16 grand a year, working 9 to 5 five days a week, why would you expect anything else financially?
I employ you to do a job of work, and if you do it then I pay you. The object of free enterpise is to make a profit, which hopefully is where the staff come in. Why as an employer should I feel compelled to give any more than the wages which that employee is happy with? If they are not happy there is always a big brown thing....called a door.
I pay the staff good wages, they have a pretty easy time there, why the heck would I want to share my profits with them? They may well get a bonus at Xmas. But share the profits when I am the one taking all the gambles?.....not on your nelly.
Anyone who thinks I am wrong is clearly and I mean very clearly, a wage slave.
I personally wouldnt expect a company your size to share profits, I put a post up about profit sharing, I dont know if it was this thread, I would think it is more benifical for staff morale in a large company to issue more incentives to help build morale it make you feel part of a team and not just a number.
Hey did you know in Australia Staff after ten years service are paid 3 months leave every so many years thereafter. I don't know what companies pay that but I know the one my cousin works for does. They believe incentives helps in keeping loyal staff.
