O/T Things You Once Did Until Technology Came Along

I normally wouldn't dream of jumping in on a thread, but I'll make an exception for this one given that it is such a corker

Great entertainment for the neutral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiletyke

It's an age thing I think you can get pads

---

Ez tha got sum spareuns ;D;D;D WAP O:)

Just to clear things up , my reference to your festerin sickness was not at all about your health , it's the sickness you have to keep questioning other posters such as RF about things that don't concern you , alluding to mobility cars etc , Asking Kerr if they have children , who the hell do you think you are ? You haven't even had the decency to reply about " The Church " or even attempted to apologise for calling me a perv , yet Pass put a smiley face on something you didn't like , and got an unnecessary apology , No further questions , no more contact SFRO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiletyke

RF said

"As a lad mother RF's advice on how to beat the bullies was to ignore them and they'd get bored.
So that's my tactic with SB Red.Do the same with Exile Roma.".

Jumping in explained

While we're into explaining why did you refer to me as a bully?

---

Ah, I see.
Where did I refer to you as a bully then ?
I merely advised Roma to employ the same tactics as when dealing with them.
Haven't you ever used old jam jars/coffee tins to store stuff in your shed ? Same container,different application,same end result (summat stored)

Similarly - Ignore your detractors Same tactic,different application, same end result.

Tha see ??

Right that's cleared that up
Must admit though, your tactic of ignoring SB by constantly replying to his posts is a concept difficult to grasp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SBRed48

I think you meant Post 47 Ziles. The young man who never bullies has called me a "bigot" and a "reight arsehole" in this thread, to which I have never returned the insults and do not intend to. Don't let the facts spoil the argument.

I intended to drop the whole issue but clearly nerves are raw. I went up to watch Barkisland play cricket this afternoon and sat with the usual band of village elders up there. We were talking the usual old blokes stuff when one of the blokes neighbours rolls in the car park in a brand new shiny car. Somebody said "How does he afford a car like that ?" and somebody replied "Oh it's not his, it's a company car". Naturally my interest was aroused and I said "There's a bloke on the internet saying it's hardly worth having a company car", to which the bloke replied "I used to have one year after year, al tell you how it works"--

"My last company car was two years ago. It had a P111D Value (almost the same as the cost price) of £20,000, a mid range company car. HMRC assessed it's Benefit Value to me of £4800 per annum so I had to pay 40% tax on that ie £1920 pa or about £160 per month. For that £160 a month I got--
--a new/ latest model car every three years. If I had bought it on personal finance over 5 years £20,000 would have cost me £400 a month and the VAT at 20% was included in that price. Businesses can claim back part or all of the VAT so it is more tax efficient for them to have company cars.
--free servicing, repairs and tyre replacement
--car tax paid by company
--free breakdown cover

It was a no brainer really. Had I taken the £4800 as additional income I would have had to pay the same tax leaving me with £2880pa or about £240 a month to cover the finance for the car and other costs, plus taking the depreciation hit myself rather than the company. Naturally I opted for a company car every time like most do".

I said "Summats not reyt here. This bloke says the company cars are hardly worth having. He knows all about company cars because he opts for them year after year. I'm sure he will put us right".

---

He ent replied to my Post above Ziles so maybe it's a start.

This thread is a complex web of points scooaring with the odd bit of personal abuse thrown in. :P ;D
As Kerr sez good stuff for the neutrals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SBRed48

He ent replied to my Post above Ziles so maybe it's a start.

---

Damned if he does Damned if he doesn't SB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiletyke

Damned if he does Damned if he doesn't SB

---

Feck it Ziles, I'm off on holiday on Thursday so I'll leave you with this and take being damned.

SB Red.
Firstly, may I say how impressed I am at your powers of memory following your chat to your co village elder.
I've read your post a couple of times and couldn't quote all the figures back as accurately as you - so very well done sir !

As you know this all started when I responded to your post about company cars being a tax fiddle.
So let me tell you ( using your very own example) why it's not a tax fiddle.

Your pal's company shells out 20k off it's bottom line in order to provide him with a car to go swanning around to corporate golf days shouting at immigrants as he passes them by.

They really like buying company cars because there's nothing like pouring your hard earned capitol into an ever depreciating asset.!!
Depending on what method they use to calculate their depreciation ( lets go with simple straight line depreciation) the car will have depreciated 8k over the two years he had it assuming that their keeping it for five years, normally cars are kept for three or four so depreciate at a higher rate, but for this exercise lets give you all the help we can and say they'll keep it for 5 years.
We don't know what the residual nett book value will be as we don't know what mileage will be done, what job he does, what condition the car will be in when he's finished with it.

So, the car won't depreciate to nil as it will still have some value, but it will depreciate at a higher figure the younger it is.

Now here's the double whammy - having already spent 20k on a car which is only worth 12k after 2 years,depreciation is added back to trading profit before a company pays tax.

So where's your tax fiddle ?

The company has put it's capitol into a depreciating asset, it then has to pay tax on the depreciation !!!

How on earth is this a tax fiddle.??? Are you really saying that a company will take twice the depreciation as the employee will pay tax on, then pay tax on said depreciation, having initially spend 20k for the privilege, just so it's employee can enjoy a personal tax saving ???

And this is just for one car, what if they have 5 (100k initial outlay) ? The initial capitol expenditure, depreciation off the bottom line, and the tax on the depreciation obviously increases with the numbers of cars they have.

Do pull the other one SB.

As for whether a company car is worth having google the subject - the tax on the individual depends on the value of the car and the CO2 emissions. The tax and depreciation burden on the company depend on the value of the car and of course the numbers of company cars on the books.

It's not a tax fiddle Now, can we please leave it here and move on ?!

All that stuff is from the company's perspective.

My point was that by and large company cars are a good deal for the person evvin the car rather than being "hardly worth it". (I wrote the numbers darn in the cricket club bar on the back of a team sheet as he wo speykin)

I'm happy to leave it theear. Enjoy thi holiday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SBRed48

All that stuff is from the company's perspective.

My point was that by and large company cars are a good deal for the person evvin the car rather than being "hardly worth it". (I wrote the numbers darn in the cricket club bar on the back of a team sheet as he wo speykin)

I'm happy to leave it theear. Enjoy thi holiday.

---

Thank you SB. I will.