Thanks

[NotAllThere]

He's banned for one week, btw.

[suityou01]

He's banned for one week, btw.

I just checked, and this thread is still not registering on my give-a-tulip-o-meter.

HTH.

[BrilloPad]

I just checked, and this thread is still not registering on my give-a-tulip-o-meter.

HTH.

Do any threads reach that high?

[suityou01]

Do any threads reach that high?

Yours do mate, always.

[eek]

He's banned for one week, btw.

Meh

[sasguru]

It's a shame that it's that twat Rusell who raised this issue, and in such a numpty way, because there's a real and serious debate to be had here.
And that is what an accountancy firm should provide for the money you pay them.
Scotsgal was shouted down ( and it could very well have been a sockie) but she/he/it made a valid point: when you pay someone £100 plus a month, you shouldn't really have to think about the accountancy stuff.
When I was contracting I was constantly annoyed by how little accountants actually do for their money - you can't get simpler than a contractor's accounts.

[NotAllThere]

I pay my accountant on a time and materials basis, so I know exactly what he does for the money I pay him.

If you think it's a serious issue, raise it on the Legal and Accounting forum.

[BrilloPad]

When I was contracting I was constantly annoyed by how little accountants actually do for their money - you can't get simpler than a contractor's accounts.

I seem to remember that a couple of hundred years ago a doctor pulled a tooth for a gentleman - then presented him with a bill for a guinea. The gentleman refused to pay without a full breakdown saying it was too expensive. The doctor sent a bill. "For pulling the tooth - 1 shilling. For knowing how to pull the tooth so it caused the least pain - 1 pound".

And there are plenty of accountants and plenty of competition.

[Old Greg]

It's a shame that it's that twat Rusell who raised this issue, and in such a numpty way, because there's a real and serious debate to be had here.
And that is what an accountancy firm should provide for the money you pay them.
Scotsgal was shouted down ( and it could very well have been a sockie) but she/he/it made a valid point: when you pay someone £100 plus a month, you shouldn't really have to think about the accountancy stuff.
When I was contracting I was constantly annoyed by how little accountants actually do for their money - you can't get simpler than a contractor's accounts.

You are simpler than a contractor's accounts.

HTH

[eek]

It's a shame that it's that twat Rusell who raised this issue, and in such a numpty way, because there's a real and serious debate to be had here.
And that is what an accountancy firm should provide for the money you pay them.
Scotsgal was shouted down ( and it could very well have been a sockie) but she/he/it made a valid point: when you pay someone £100 plus a month, you shouldn't really have to think about the accountancy stuff.
When I was contracting I was constantly annoyed by how little accountants actually do for their money - you can't get simpler than a contractor's accounts.

+1 although without the original article its impossible to accurately comment whether Russell had a valid complaint or had just get the wrong idea about what argument NW were using for the wages part of his income.

Contractor accounts are obviously simple I would have though this years tax efficient plan could be written with full explanation on 1 side of A4.