Originally posted by TheFaQQer
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Strikers are stealing from their own children
Collapse
X
-
Blaster's strong point isn't basic maths. Or logic. But he's in a band. Bet that's mediocre too.Hard Brexit now!
#prayfornodeal -
Did you check their Accounts payable?Originally posted by TheFaQQer View PostWell according to their last statement, they had 7.72bn in cash.
If you actually check their balance sheet their cash and receivables match their short term liabilities ie accounts payable, remove 5bn they have a cash flow problem.I'm alright JackComment
-
After they lost of Court of Appeal ruling, Vodafone set aside £2.2bn as a liability to pay for the deal, which was widely regarded as not being enough for the full liability. This does not appear in their cash on hand, because it's no longer cash - it's a liability in the accounts.Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostDid you check their Accounts payable?
If you actually check their balance sheet their cash and receivables match their short term liabilities ie accounts payable, remove 5bn they have a cash flow problem.
They then got a deal from Dave Hartnett which means that they pay £800million, plus £400million over time, plus a guarantee that they won't be prosecuted / chased for any more overseas dodgy tax deal.
At the very, very least, they were let off £1bn by a civil servant without reference to HMRC lawyers. That's comparing the maximum they will pay to the value that they set aside to pay for it.
Of course, £1bn isn't very much, so it's not worth chasing for, really, in the grand scheme of things
Comment
-
Because that's the deal that was made with them?Originally posted by original PM View PostI was watching the news last night and one thing which i did wonder was why the Public Sector workers seem to think they have a job for life and should have a great pension?
.....
If you don't think that their employer should have made that deal, complain to the employer, not the employee who only wants the contract to be honoured.Job motivation: how the powerful steal from the stupid.Comment
-
Their employer is HM government. The public complained by means of the vote, and put in place a government that they felt would tackle their concerns; now that government are attempting to do so.Originally posted by Ignis Fatuus View PostBecause that's the deal that was made with them?
If you don't think that their employer should have made that deal, complain to the employer, not the employee who only wants the contract to be honoured.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
Actually, they didn't.Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostTheir employer is HM government. The public complained by means of the vote, and put in place a government that they felt would tackle their concerns; now that government are attempting to do so.
No-one voted for the coalition of losers that formed this government.Comment
-
They voted for their representatives who then formed a government. If they wanted something else, they should have voted for other representatives. They could have had Gordon again.Originally posted by TheFaQQer View PostActually, they didn't.
No-one voted for the coalition of losers that formed this government.And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
Actually they did, or nobody ever does. The system in the UK is that the Monarch (HM QE2) asks one of the party leaders to form a Government from those elected. It is normally the leader of the party with a majority, but it could be anybody who thinks they can form and keep a Government.Originally posted by TheFaQQer View PostActually, they didn't.Just saying like.
where there's chaos, there's cash !
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong!
Lowering the tone since 1963Comment
-
We know it's unfair. It's all unfair. But it has to be done. Agree that the other injustices should be tackled too.Originally posted by pjclarkeProposed increase in pension contributions that triggered the strike: 2.8bn
Amount of tax Tamara Ecclestone's dad saves by using an offshore trust controlled by his wife : £2bn (as opposed to Philip Green, whio gains around £300m/year by the same dodge)
Cost of proposed top-down NHS re-organisation: £2bn.
Cost of Afghanistan campaign: £4.5bn / year
2 x aircraft carriers (aircraft optional): £6.2bn
Amount raised by a 'Tobin' tax at 0.05%: c £20bn
Cost to Government of planned cuts to corporation tax: £1bn / year by 2014.
Amount retrieved from Swiss tax evader amnesty (all offences waived) £5bn, Estimated amount still illegally sheltered: £20bn
No money
?And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014Comment
-
Changing the board of directors of an employer does not allow it to invalidate all employment contracts.Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostTheir employer is HM government. The public complained by means of the vote, and put in place a government that they felt would tackle their concerns; now that government are attempting to do so.
This government is free to offer what contracts it pleases to potential new employees; it is not morally free to break existing contracts.Job motivation: how the powerful steal from the stupid.Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- How key for IR35 will Control be in 2026/27? Today 07:13
- What does the non-compete clause consultation mean for contractors? Yesterday 07:59
- To escalate or wait? With late payment, even month two is too late Feb 18 07:26
- Signs of IT contractor jobs uplift softened in January 2026 Feb 17 07:37
- ‘Make Work Pay…’ heralds a new era for umbrella company compliance Feb 16 08:23
- Should a new limited company not making much money pay a salary/dividend? Feb 13 08:43
- Blocking the 2025 Loan Charge settlement opportunity from being a genuine opportunity is… HMRC Feb 12 07:41
- How a buyer’s market in UK property for 2026 is contractors’ double-edge sword Feb 11 07:12
- Why PAYE overcharging by HMRC is every contractor’s problem Feb 10 06:26
- Government unveils ‘Umbrella Company Regulations consultation’ Feb 9 05:55

Comment