Symbol Owner Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 How about this then? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JuXJgGmRAE Once again, Osborne shoots himself in the foot/has egg on his face with his disastrous budget! Pam Greener may be wrong about 'double taxation' though, -- I thought that charitable donations to registered charities attracted 'gift Aid' --i.e.;-can claim back tax at standard rate? BUT-- what do I know? (Places tin hat on head and retires rapidly) (!) Cheers, Colin. P.S. Not exactly 'Classical' music then, but a brilliant ditty, from the dean's wife! C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted April 13, 2012 Author Share Posted April 13, 2012 By way of explanation, folks, here's the story behind the song................. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/12/in-praise-of-pamela-greener?INTCMP=SRCH Or this:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2012/apr/05/wakefield-cathedral-vat-ditty-osborne?INTCMP=SRCH Colin. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Why don't you get FG to explain the hit is actually only 17% of the total inclusive of VAT cost of renovation? Ooooooooooops - sorry! - 16.66666666666666666666666666666666r% I am sure this will make them feel soooooooooo much better. (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francisgraham Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 CliveH - 2012-04-15 6:32 AMWhy don't you get FG to explain the hit is actually only 17% of the total inclusive of VAT cost of renovation? Ooooooooooops - sorry! - 16.66666666666666666666666666666666r%I am sure this will make them feel soooooooooo much better. (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) I'm sure that, unlike you, they are capable of understanding it. And I would remind you that it was you, third post, page 2, who had to tell us all that my phrase 'about 17%' was actually 16.666%. Like most of your posts this was all about proving how clever CliveH is, when in fact you're actually pretty dumb, and was one of your earliest attempts to extricate yourself from your initial blunder where you thought that I'd quoted the standard VAT rate as 17%, when I did no such thing. Putting a bunch of smilies at the end of what is another nasty little post to have a dig at people you've previously argued with does not in any way lessen the fact that it's a nasty little post. Now please let this drop and spend some time revising your basic arithmetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Have to agree with you here FG - come on Clive - let it go please! There are better things to discuss! Like whether paint dries faster indoors where it is warmer or outdoors where it is windier? Or maybe the combination of all that continuously moving hot air in some homes gives the best of both paint drying scenarios? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted April 15, 2012 Author Share Posted April 15, 2012 The serious point is that I hoped that you lot would sign Pam Greener's e-petition (!) V.A.T. (however you two chose to calculate it >:-( ) should surely NOT be payable on work done on listed buildings, particularly historic properties used by, loved and contributed to, by the whole community. Osborne's dreadful budget is targeting the wrong class of people -- his potential voters -- again! I thought that a lighter 'take' on the subject might get you two away from your 'V.A.T. spat' sorry -- seems Oi wuz wrong -- 9again! *-) Cheers, Colin. P.S. I'm afraid that, once again, Clive just doesn't read posts properly --'firing off' like a a blunderbuss in all directions! C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 francisgraham - 2012-04-15 11:15 AMCliveH - 2012-04-15 6:32 AMWhy don't you get FG to explain the hit is actually only 17% of the total inclusive of VAT cost of renovation? Ooooooooooops - sorry! - 16.66666666666666666666666666666666r%I am sure this will make them feel soooooooooo much better. (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)I'm sure that, unlike you, they are capable of understanding it. And I would remind you that it was you, third post, page 2, who had to tell us all that my phrase 'about 17%' was actually 16.666%. Like most of your posts this was all about proving how clever CliveH is, when in fact you're actually pretty dumb, and was one of your earliest attempts to extricate yourself from your initial blunder where you thought that I'd quoted the standard VAT rate as 17%, when I did no such thing.Putting a bunch of smilies at the end of what is another nasty little post to have a dig at people you've previously argued with does not in any way lessen the fact that it's a nasty little post. Now please let this drop and spend some time revising your basic arithmetic.The basic arithmetic has never really been the issue - I stated that te 17% was a minor point given that you yourself had referred to "basic" items - what is wrong with the use of the 17% figure is that it is dependent upon the content of the shopping basket - that was always my point. Backed up by the fact that nobody in finance uses your odd way of "accounting" for VAT.You believe what you want FG - matters not a jot to me. But I would have thought you would have seen the humour in the post given that the article Colin cites quotes the VAT as up to "20%".But obviously not.Still I am happy with that (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Symbol Owner - 2012-04-15 11:56 AM The serious point is that I hoped that you lot would sign Pam Greener's e-petition (!) V.A.T. (however you two chose to calculate it >:-( ) should surely NOT be payable on work done on listed buildings, particularly historic properties used by, loved and contributed to, by the whole community. Osborne's dreadful budget is targeting the wrong class of people -- his potential voters -- again! I thought that a lighter 'take' on the subject might get you two away from your 'V.A.T. spat' sorry -- seems Oi wuz wrong -- 9again! *-) Cheers, Colin. P.S. I'm afraid that, once again, Clive just doesn't read posts properly --'firing off' like a a blunderbuss in all directions! C. As I say above - I was just amused to see VAT quoted at 20% in the article - surely getting the lovely Pam to believe that the rea cost was only 17% (of the larger sum she may have now have to find) would give her a crumb of comfort? (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Symbol Owner - 2012-04-15 11:56 AM The serious point is that I hoped that you lot would sign Pam Greener's e-petition (!) V.A.T. (however you two chose to calculate it >:-( ) should surely NOT be payable on work done on listed buildings, particularly historic properties used by, loved and contributed to, by the whole community. Colin. . Why? Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.