Not sure:
'But if he was moved onto payroll, the total for two years would reach £588,900 because of a finder's fee payable to Penna and tax and National Insurance costs to the SLC.'
But let's not let facts get in the way.
Chat Forum
"All in it together...unless you're a top civil servant"
-
Posted 3 months ago #
-
Does seem a bit fishy, but if he's on a fixed term contract and operates outside of IR35 then I don't see what the fuss is about. It's HMRC and the tax laws that should be getting the bashing here.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Anyway perhaps you would like to discuss the actual issue now rather than the messenger?
If you lived outside
the UKEngland for some time and removed the blinkers you would have a differing opinion, anyway, yes i agree lets not go off topic and detract from the OP.Posted 3 months ago # -
It is probably best you go back to discussing the meesenger if that is the best you have to offer.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Why aracer......because I acknowledge that Cameron/Osborne/Clegg have dropped all pretense that "we're all in this together" ?
They might have stopped saying it (due to the level of public scorn) but I don't remembering them standing up and saying...
"No, you were right, you lot are going to suffer from all the austerity and me and my affluent buddies are hardly going to notice, what with our considerable wealth as a cushion"
Posted 3 months ago # -
it's not permanent employment, but a two year contract.
Ach, come on, in the current economic climate and in a flexible labour market, two years is far more security than 90% of employees in the UK have.Posted 3 months ago # -
LHS - Member
..... yes i agree lets not go off topic and detract from the OP.
Brilliant.......you managed to go off topic with your very first post !
Which was :
LHS - Member
Private services being contracted to do a job for a public company.
Not that uncommon across the board really?
This news story and the OP's link has nothing at all to do with whether it's common for private services to be contracted to do a job for a public company.
It's concerning the fact that the chief secretary to the Treasury was allegedly unaware of the potential tax benefits to the Student Loans Company's chief executive, and that he had ordered an "urgent review"
The clue is in the headline, written in big bold letters : "Civil servant tax claims: Danny Alexander orders review", so how you missed that is beyond me - I can only conclude that you deliberately deviated from the topic, I can't imagine that anyone who posts on here struggles that much understanding simple written English. Or are really that easily confused ?
You then compounded the problem by appearing to still be in a confused state/off topic, by posting this picture :
The inference is clear - that this is all the result of "mob rule". And yet Danny Alexander's decision came only after a BBC Newsnight report, the issue had not been discussed by the general media and there was no evidence of any "public outrage" over the matter.
Unperturbed you decided to attack the BBC and continue to go "off topic and detract from the OP", something which you now claim you don't want to do
Posted 3 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
