Capital punishment

[Guest Had Enough]

Symbol Owner - 2013-07-08 7:30 PM

 

Now that you chaps seem to have concluded your long-winded 'spat(s)' can we get back to Malcolms' original post please?

Here is a fascinating piece 'from the horses' mouth'. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/07/hope-prison-lifer-exhausting-sentence

The ex-lifer author of this piece certainly makes one look at sentencing for murder in a new way, and has some reference to the previous post on this forum concerning Ian Brady.

When I did my three months training, many years ago, with the prison welfare service, in an 'open' establishment, something like 2/3 of the inmates were 'lifers', being considered for parole. As part of my long study for my Diploma in Applied Social Studies (don't laugh at the back, there, Pelmetman!) I was privileged to be allowed to interview and base my study (anonymously of course) on one of them.

I obviously can't say much about it, on the grounds of confidentiality and was not allowed to keep a copy of it, but much of Erwin James' article stirred memories and matched my experience of that man all of those years ago (1976). I have no idea, of course, but I do hope that my 'lifer' was able to 'turn his life around' when he got 'outside'. If he is still alive, he will still be the subject of a 'Life Licence' just as will John Venables -- the subject of yet another associated thread on this forum.

 

Colin.

 

But what's your point? We abolish the death penalty and substitute long prison sentences. Are we now to be told that long prison sentences are inhumane and should be abolished?

 

The purpose of prison is to punish, to deter, keep evil men of the streets thus protecting society and, for those serving shorter sentences, to rehabilitate.

 

We must also not forget the victims and their families who need to feel that their loss hasn't been in vain.

 

If however we are to imprison the worst offenders for life or for many decades then prison must be humane and have some purpose. There must be education, rehabilitation, and a system that rewards those who will accept their lot, comply with the rules and do a worthwhile job whilst inside and seek to better themselves via education.

 

Rewards for the right kind of behaviour would be the luxuries; TV, a decent cell with en-suite shower and lavatory even, conjugal visits, incarceration near home and the promise of a shorter sentence if they genuinely try to accept their position and work to make it more palatable for themselves and prison staff.

 

Some people should never be released though. There is no chance of capital punishment returning in our lifetimes (much as I'd approve) so we must make the best of the only alternative.

 

I would also be in favour of a totally different kind of prison for shorter sentences for crimes of a certain nature and for repeat offenders. I would make short sentences as unpleasant as possible, with spartan cells, hard work, basic food and few privileges. We need to convince the burglars and other petty criminals that prison is somewhere they don't want to return to.

 

[Symbol Owner]

Had Enough - 2013-07-08 9:04 PM

"But what's your point?"

There wasn't really a 'point' Frank, just a wish to put forward an alternative slant, from the offender/inmate's point of view. If there was any 'point' at all, then you have made it for me:-

 

"If however we are to imprison the worst offenders for life or for many decades then prison must be humane and have some purpose. There must be education, rehabilitation, and a system that rewards those who will accept their lot, comply with the rules and do a worthwhile job whilst inside and seek to better themselves via education." And, I would add, if appropriate, prepare themselves for release.

 

The American way, as highlighted by Erwin James' correspondence with his 'life without parole' friend, amounts, in my view, to: 'cruel & inhumane treatment' -- almost torture, if the man is being deprived, for the rest of his natural life, of any activity connected with his personal development -- it would have been more merciful to have committed judicial murder upon him. The rest of your post I have no quibble with -- totally agree.

 

Colin.

 

 

[Mel B]

My goodness ... I'm shocked! 8-)

 

This thread has actually got back on topic ... amazing!!!! :D

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2013-07-08 5:13 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-07-08 4:45 PM

 

 

In conclusion? - Frank is on the sales side of the business and has little to do with he actual financial running of the business it seems. It is OK for Frank to employ "techies" when he need outside expertise but when we do it here in means that we are a two bit IFA firm in a back street location!

 

 

 

First of all thank you for finally saying unequivocally that I am who I said I am. I was hoping that you'd have a bit more grace about wrapping this up but what you've written above is a travesty of our conversation.

 

I have been responsible for all the major financial decisions in running my business ever since it started! I decide policy, if we're going to open a branch or provide cars for key staff for instance. I negotiated with bank managers, credit card companies and landlords for 25 years.

 

What I told you is that I am not an expert on pensions or leases and I employ accountants and lawyers to handle that side of things. Sensible businessmen concentrate on running their business and leave stuff like that to the professionals.

 

But what's odd is that with all this terrible advice from my accountants and me knowing nothing about business finance I've managed to grow the company year on year in a trade where most people are folding! What's odd is that my balance sheet shows £1.5 million of retained profits over these years. What's odd is that we've survived every recession over the last thirty years!

 

And all this with financially-illiterate me at the helm! And I don't have a single backroom techie. I just use a very good firm of accountants and a good business lawyer. That's what all businesses do!

 

As I said, I'm glad that we've agreed that I am genuine and do have my business but I really do not want your advice on how to run my it. Things have gone quite well so far without you.

 

When you criticised certain aspects of my business you were actually criticising fellow professionals who know my business and my trade far better than you.

 

There's one thing that we all know about accountants and financial advisors, which is that if you laid every one of them in the world end to end they wouldn't reach a conclusion!

 

So please Clive, we're done. No more telling me how to run my firm. I've done OK without you so far.

 

 

I simply feel you are not getting the best from them (The other "professionals) - The depreciation on the cars was a classic example. Add to that the P11D tax hit for the individual and what you say just screams for someone to put you on the right track.

 

Perhaps Alex Polizzi ??? :-D :-D

 

 

[CliveH]

Sorry Mel (lol)

 

Capital punishment always sounds like a good option - especially for the more heinous crimes. The Venables situation is one that most would say - here is a person who should be "put down". And I have enormous empathy with that. To hear that he is out again makes me deeply uneasy.

 

It would certainly be cheaper for the State on a one to one basis - but when the State gets it wrong and someone who was entirely innocent base been executed then compensation for the family reaches astounding levels.

 

And where you have terrorism - executing the perpetrators simply provides another Martyr for that twisted cause.

 

So whilst "an eye for an eye" sounds good, fair and equitable, blindness on both sides is a result.

 

I think we have it right in this country regarding capital punishment. And I certainly would agree with Frank that our prisons are too soft.

 

But the far bigger issue we have with our legal system is how it can be abused by those such as Abu Qatada. We have Venables out on license because he was a child when he committed that dreadful crime and our laws say that he can only serve so long - the bill for this is paid for by us the taxpayer. We have a known terrorist subject playing the system BECAUSE where we want to deport him to had differing standards to ours. The cost to the UK has been enormous.

 

Teresa May is now saying openly that the UK may walk away from the Human Rights Bill if we have another Qatada type debacle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Symbol Owner]

And Still the debate goes on!

At the highest level -- see here:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

 

Colin.

[Guest pelmetman]

So even the most depraved murderers will now get hope that they maybe released *-).............

 

It must give the victims families a nice warm feeling inside, knowing how the system is looking out for the people that tortured and murdered their children and relatives 8-)..........

 

Human rights...........my ar*e >:-(

[Guest Had Enough]

pelmetman - 2013-07-09 10:25 AM

 

So even the most depraved murderers will now get hope that they maybe released *-).............

 

It must give the victims families a nice warm feeling inside, knowing how the system is looking out for the people that tortured and murdered their children and relatives 8-)..........

 

Human rights...........my ar*e >:-(

 

Agreed, but most left-liberals simply don't consider the victims' or the families' wishes. We've already read that one of our members would not have executed Adolf Hitler. I don't know how anyone could look into the eyes of a Jewish person who has just lost most of his family in the death camps, or known of them subjected to the most horrid 'medical' experiments, and tell them that they think that he should only go to prison for the rest of his life.

 

I believe that many abolitionists are only interested in their own self-worth and are motivated by the lovely warm feelings they get from thinking themselves as humane and liberal human beings.

 

I would use the death penalty sparingly, but I would reintroduce it. Some crimes ares so shocking that they deserve nothing less.

 

Israel does not have the death penalty - but it changed the law for Adolf Eichmann, so horrendous were his crimes. Good for Israel say I!

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-07-09 6:06 AM

 

I simply feel you are not getting the best from them (The other "professionals) - The depreciation on the cars was a classic example. Add to that the P11D tax hit for the individual and what you say just screams for someone to put you on the right track.

 

Perhaps Alex Polizzi ??? :-D :-D

 

 

Wow, Alex Polizzi. Brilliant idea. If I'd used her and you I might have twenty shops by now! How many branches did you have by the way when you sold out? ;-)

 

You're right though, my staff are horrified by the eight quid a week P11D tax they have to pay for running a car free of charge on the firm. :-) I must take the cars off them asap!

[Guest Had Enough]

The rot sets in! They've made their decision and not only can't we execute the most horrendous criminals, we won't even be able to keep them in prison for life! I'm pro Europe but it's time we opted out of this Human Rights farce!

 

'The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.

 

The court ruled there had to be both a possibility of release and review to be compatible with their human rights.'

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

 

I'm going to work to stop me banging my head on the wall at home! They're used to it there!

[RogerC]

Had Enough - 2013-07-09 11:11 AMThe rot sets in! They've made their decision and not only can't we execute the most horrendous criminals, we won't even be able to keep them in prison for life! I'm pro Europe but it's time we opted out of this Human Rights farce!'The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.The court ruled there had to be both a possibility of release and review to be compatible with their human rights.'http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419I'm going to work to stop me banging my head on the wall at home! They're used to it there!

 

I sincerely believe those that commit an offence worthy of a prison sentence have, of their own free will divested themselves of 'their human rights' for the duration of their sentence.  We need tougher sentencing, tougher prisons and a tougher government to stand up against these interfering Euro idiots.

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Its time to vote UKIP :D

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2013-07-09 10:42 AM

 

CliveH - 2013-07-09 6:06 AM

 

I simply feel you are not getting the best from them (The other "professionals) - The depreciation on the cars was a classic example. Add to that the P11D tax hit for the individual and what you say just screams for someone to put you on the right track.

 

Perhaps Alex Polizzi ??? :-D :-D

 

 

Wow, Alex Polizzi. Brilliant idea. If I'd used her and you I might have twenty shops by now! How many branches did you have by the way when you sold out? ;-)

 

You're right though, my staff are horrified by the eight quid a week P11D tax they have to pay for running a car free of charge on the firm. :-) I must take the cars off them asap!

 

Oh sorry Frank.

 

When you said "Company Cars" - I assumed something worthy of the name. *-)

[CliveH]

RogerC - 2013-07-09 1:27 PM

Had Enough - 2013-07-09 11:11 AMThe rot sets in! They've made their decision and not only can't we execute the most horrendous criminals, we won't even be able to keep them in prison for life! I'm pro Europe but it's time we opted out of this Human Rights farce!'The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.The court ruled there had to be both a possibility of release and review to be compatible with their human rights.'http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419I'm going to work to stop me banging my head on the wall at home! They're used to it there!

 

I sincerely believe those that commit an offence worthy of a prison sentence have, of their own free will divested themselves of 'their human rights' for the duration of their sentence.  We need tougher sentencing, tougher prisons and a tougher government to stand up against these interfering Euro idiots.

Certainly I would agree that in this case the EU Legal oversight has not provided a ruling that (in my view) most here in the UK would agree with.That said - I was intrigued by a comment by one of the "apologists" on this mornings TV when she stated that the Prison Authorities and the Wardens would welcome such a ruling as it makes looking after such long term criminals easier. Here argument was (and I am extrapolating a bit here) that without any prospect of release the prisoner is effectively unmanageable.Which is a) an argument i have not heard before in this debate and b) does seem to be a potential reality.So my question is firstly - have the prison authorities and the wardens unions actually stated anything like this? and secondly is it based upon any real findings?

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-07-09 11:11 AM

 

The rot sets in! They've made their decision and not only can't we execute the most horrendous criminals, we won't even be able to keep them in prison for life! I'm pro Europe but it's time we opted out of this Human Rights farce!

 

'The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.

 

The court ruled there had to be both a possibility of release and review to be compatible with their human rights.'

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

 

I'm going to work to stop me banging my head on the wall at home! They're used to it there!

 

If you get beyond the knee-jerk reaction you will discover that nothing has necessarily changed. The court ruled that those prisoners have the right to have their sentences reviewed. A review simply means that the sentences will be re-examined at a given time. That review could easily (and possibly will in the cases referred to) decide that the time is not right for release. Hence, the Brady-type criminals will almost certainly never get out but they will also not have their hope removed. It seems to me that this might make them behave better in jail and so the most probable result is no change in sentence but an improvement in behaviour, so life is better for the warders. Can't see too many negatives in that.

 

Further, as Ken Clarke said, withdrawing from the Human Rights directive will make not the slightest difference. Our courts have always (in recent history) taken into account human rights, even before there was a directive; and he could see absolutely no possibility of our courts returning someone to a country where they are likely to be tortured, for example,whether we are in or out of the convention. In other words, all this talk and bluster about Human Rights is just political window dressing. I don't often agree with Ken Clarke but he has got it spot on in this one.

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-07-09 3:41 PM

RogerC - 2013-07-09 1:27 PM

Had Enough - 2013-07-09 11:11 AMThe rot sets in! They've made their decision and not only can't we execute the most horrendous criminals, we won't even be able to keep them in prison for life! I'm pro Europe but it's time we opted out of this Human Rights farce!'The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.The court ruled there had to be both a possibility of release and review to be compatible with their human rights.'http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419I'm going to work to stop me banging my head on the wall at home! They're used to it there!

 

I sincerely believe those that commit an offence worthy of a prison sentence have, of their own free will divested themselves of 'their human rights' for the duration of their sentence.  We need tougher sentencing, tougher prisons and a tougher government to stand up against these interfering Euro idiots.

Certainly I would agree that in this case the EU Legal oversight has not provided a ruling that (in my view) most here in the UK would agree with.That said - I was intrigued by a comment by one of the "apologists" on this mornings TV when she stated that the Prison Authorities and the Wardens would welcome such a ruling as it makes looking after such long term criminals easier. Here argument was (and I am extrapolating a bit here) that without any prospect of release the prisoner is effectively unmanageable.Which is a) an argument i have not heard before in this debate and b) does seem to be a potential reality.So my question is firstly - have the prison authorities and the wardens unions actually stated anything like this? and secondly is it based upon any real findings?

So the argument here (from the P.O, not from you) is that if we imprison the most vile offenders for life they will make the lives of prison officers miserable by being beastly to them and refusing to cooperate? Yep, let's just give in folks and let them out early!Here's what I said higher up this thread:If however we are to imprison the worst offenders for life or for many decades then prison must be humane and have some purpose. There must be education, rehabilitation, and a system that rewards those who will accept their lot, comply with the rules and do a worthwhile job whilst inside and seek to better themselves via education. Rewards for the right kind of behaviour would be the luxuries; TV, a decent cell with en-suite shower and lavatory even, conjugal visits, incarceration near home and the promise of a shorter sentence if they genuinely try to accept their position and work to make it more palatable for themselves and prison staff. Some people should never be released though. There is no chance of capital punishment returning in our lifetimes (much as I'd approve) so we must make the best of the only alternative. I would also be in favour of a totally different kind of prison for shorter sentences for crimes of a certain nature and for repeat offenders. I would make short sentences as unpleasant as possible, with spartan cells, hard work, basic food and few privileges. We need to convince the burglars and other petty criminals that prison is somewhere they don't want to return to. Criminals would learn that cooperation brings a relatively pleasant life but non-cooperation means that they will have a most harsh and unpleasant existence.

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-07-09 3:32 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-09 10:42 AM

 

CliveH - 2013-07-09 6:06 AM

 

I simply feel you are not getting the best from them (The other "professionals) - The depreciation on the cars was a classic example. Add to that the P11D tax hit for the individual and what you say just screams for someone to put you on the right track.

 

Perhaps Alex Polizzi ??? :-D :-D

 

 

Wow, Alex Polizzi. Brilliant idea. If I'd used her and you I might have twenty shops by now! How many branches did you have by the way when you sold out? ;-)

 

You're right though, my staff are horrified by the eight quid a week P11D tax they have to pay for running a car free of charge on the firm. :-) I must take the cars off them asap!

 

Oh sorry Frank.

 

When you said "Company Cars" - I assumed something worthy of the name. *-)

 

Well, that's not very nice. Let's look at the example of a shop manager, with two children and a mortgage. What sort of car do you think he will buy and run? A Mercedes S Class, a Jaguar XJ perhaps? He'll probably buy something like a three-year-old Ford Fiesta and worry about his next set of tyres or the exhaust failing.

 

I buy my managers a brand new Vauxhall Corsa. It's a nice little family car. These are people who don't do a high mileage, mainly commuting and attending management briefings at HO once a month.

 

These cars have a P11D value of about £11k but we'll buy them for £10K. We run then for five or six years and pay all the expenses, except fuel. My managers love it, it removes a major worry from their lives and makes them think twice and weigh up the options if they're offered a job by rivals.

 

As you will know there's been a revolution in the last few years with the lowering of emissions. The cars, even though they're diesel are listed for car benefit at about 18% of the list price, hence my eight quid a week. I think that everyone on here will know that someone being given a car, taxed, insured and serviced by the firm for such a trivial deduction from his salary, will jump at the chance.

 

And for the firm? We buy for cash and every year get to write off 25% of the value on a reducing balance. So over just five years we get £7627 to offset against corporation tax.

 

But the other very important thing of course is the cost of buying and keeping the car. After six years we'll still get a couple of grand for the car. So our total depreciation over that period is £8000 or £1333 per year, less what we save in corporation tax, another £1500.

 

It's good for my staff, it's cheap for me, it helps me retain good people and very importantly, if we suddenly enter a severe recession, or business is bad, they keep the car a year or so longer. If the cars are leased for example then those payments go out every week regardless!

 

I would take a totally different outlook on an expensive car, and I do. My partner has an S Class but it's three years old and he isn't going to pay benefit on 35% of a £75K car that's only worth £30K, so he runs it privately and claims the mileage allowance.

 

We know what we're doing, it's served me well over the years and my conservative policies have meant that we survive the worst conditions because we're not in debt to the banks or the finance companies.

 

I don't think the delectable Ms Polizzi could teach me a thing about a stock-hungry retail business but if I ever open an hotel, I'll be the first in her queue! ;-)

 

Ps My very good accountants, whom you seem to disapprove of, are business accountants. That's their job. When I had a large lump sum to invest they sent me to the IFA next door, who also did a very good job. But the IFA would not have presumed to tell my accountants how to advise retailers and other similar businesses.

 

 

[nightrider]

Had Enough - 2013-07-08 2:29 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-08 2:24 PM

 

Yippeee , and we all lived happily ever after xx , maybe we can chat about something less boring and different for a change now .

Any one see that programme on bloody Muslims other night ? :D:D

 

Well, my wife's out all day and I'm stuck at home with the builders.

 

So, speaking as a professional, how often do you think I should give them a brew?

 

On the hour every hour

[Mel B]

Is there any chance that you two who like to do 'gymnastics' in your minds about business matters :D could start your OWN thread about the pros and cons of running a business and leave this one on the subject of capital punishment???? *-)

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Mel B - 2013-07-09 9:03 PM

 

Is there any chance that you two who like to do 'gymnastics' in your minds about business matters :D could start your OWN thread about the pros and cons of running a business and leave this one on the subject of capital punishment???? *-)

 

 

You have a point Mel ;-)...............but as a failed business man I find it quite interesting as I sip my wine sat in my camper on the South coast wondering where I've gone wrong with my life :'(.................well I mean :-S............if I was successful 8-).................. I'd still be working now full time..............at 55 8-)................christ I thought I'd done well to semi retire at 46 :'( ..........................I'm such a failure :D..............but I was the same at school :-D

[nightrider]

Mel B - 2013-07-09 9:03 PM

 

Is there any chance that you two who like to do 'gymnastics' in your minds about business matters :D could start your OWN thread about the pros and cons of running a business and leave this one on the subject of capital punishment???? *-)

 

Mel,

As per usual another one of my good threads has been hijacked again.

[Guest Had Enough]

knight of the road - 2013-07-10 12:45 AM

 

Mel B - 2013-07-09 9:03 PM

 

Is there any chance that you two who like to do 'gymnastics' in your minds about business matters :D could start your OWN thread about the pros and cons of running a business and leave this one on the subject of capital punishment???? *-)

 

Mel,

As per usual another one of my good threads has been hijacked again.

 

Come on Malcolm, that's not fair. We may have our little diversion but Clive and I have made significant contributions to your topic in the last few posts. One of mine is at the top of this very page! In fact if he and I hadn't contributed to your topic it would now be pretty dull.

 

I started one on Andy Murray and his tennis achievement and now someone's introduced rugby! That's what happens in conversations, you go off at a tangent and change the whole course but this subject of capital punishment is very much back on topic!

 

Sometimes you can talk about two things at once!

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2013-07-09 7:10 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-07-09 3:32 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-09 10:42 AM

 

CliveH - 2013-07-09 6:06 AM

 

I simply feel you are not getting the best from them (The other "professionals) - The depreciation on the cars was a classic example. Add to that the P11D tax hit for the individual and what you say just screams for someone to put you on the right track.

 

Perhaps Alex Polizzi ??? :-D :-D

 

 

Wow, Alex Polizzi. Brilliant idea. If I'd used her and you I might have twenty shops by now! How many branches did you have by the way when you sold out? ;-)

 

You're right though, my staff are horrified by the eight quid a week P11D tax they have to pay for running a car free of charge on the firm. :-) I must take the cars off them asap!

 

Oh sorry Frank.

 

When you said "Company Cars" - I assumed something worthy of the name. *-)

 

Well, that's not very nice. Let's look at the example of a shop manager, with two children and a mortgage. What sort of car do you think he will buy and run? A Mercedes S Class, a Jaguar XJ perhaps? He'll probably buy something like a three-year-old Ford Fiesta and worry about his next set of tyres or the exhaust failing.

 

I buy my managers a brand new Vauxhall Corsa. It's a nice little family car. These are people who don't do a high mileage, mainly commuting and attending management briefings at HO once a month.

 

These cars have a P11D value of about £11k but we'll buy them for £10K. We run then for five or six years and pay all the expenses, except fuel. My managers love it, it removes a major worry from their lives and makes them think twice and weigh up the options if they're offered a job by rivals.

 

As you will know there's been a revolution in the last few years with the lowering of emissions. The cars, even though they're diesel are listed for car benefit at about 18% of the list price, hence my eight quid a week. I think that everyone on here will know that someone being given a car, taxed, insured and serviced by the firm for such a trivial deduction from his salary, will jump at the chance.

 

And for the firm? We buy for cash and every year get to write off 25% of the value on a reducing balance. So over just five years we get £7627 to offset against corporation tax.

 

But the other very important thing of course is the cost of buying and keeping the car. After six years we'll still get a couple of grand for the car. So our total depreciation over that period is £8000 or £1333 per year, less what we save in corporation tax, another £1500.

 

It's good for my staff, it's cheap for me, it helps me retain good people and very importantly, if we suddenly enter a severe recession, or business is bad, they keep the car a year or so longer. If the cars are leased for example then those payments go out every week regardless!

 

I would take a totally different outlook on an expensive car, and I do. My partner has an S Class but it's three years old and he isn't going to pay benefit on 35% of a £75K car that's only worth £30K, so he runs it privately and claims the mileage allowance.

 

We know what we're doing, it's served me well over the years and my conservative policies have meant that we survive the worst conditions because we're not in debt to the banks or the finance companies.

 

I don't think the delectable Ms Polizzi could teach me a thing about a stock-hungry retail business but if I ever open an hotel, I'll be the first in her queue! ;-)

 

Ps My very good accountants, whom you seem to disapprove of, are business accountants. That's their job. When I had a large lump sum to invest they sent me to the IFA next door, who also did a very good job. But the IFA would not have presumed to tell my accountants how to advise retailers and other similar businesses.

 

 

Well from my calculations you are crazy to keep them 5 year. It just does not add up.

 

The P11D benefits for the individual are based upon the list price of the car and by my calculations (From the HMRC website) it is a lot more than £8 a week for even the most basic of Corsa's that are "fully expensed as you originally said to me!

 

- but now you say "except fuel".

 

And don't forget you as the employer pay Class 1A Nic at 13.8% on the P11D benefit. So that is a further circa £270 per employee.

 

Assuming the vehicle goes into the company's balance sheet, the company would obviously own the vehicle so the company reclaims the costs of the car in full and the employee is subject to BIK issues on the personal usage, plus as I say above the company is subject to Class 1A contributions as well which you do not mention.

 

There are various BIK issues here which would normally mean the need for a comprehensive reply but frankly I cannot be arced now. Whatever you do has to be the correct option Frank - you will not have it anyother way!

 

But for sake of completness, there are various calculators and guides on HMRC site to help you with this

 

There are 2 basic scenarios, your client could pay the company back for the private miles, the rates of which are available on HMRC's site (they are tiered to engine size, etc), which may be beneficial re the companies class 1A's - talk to your accountant Frank - I am sure he can explain it to you.

 

There is a calculator that will let you know how much your employee will have to pay for the private use if they do not pay the company back, it is variously listed as the 'car fuel benefit calculator' or 'company car benefit calculator' or similar.

 

There have been a fair few changes in the rules re Company cars of late and you should check to see that what you are doing is still the best option

 

I have my doubts as you know but you seem to insist you know best! , see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cars/rule-changes.htm

 

You need to inform HMRC with a P46 (car) notification as well.

 

Current thinking across the board - (and despite what you infer - I have never said anything negative about your accountants - in fact I suggested you mention it to them as I think you are not up to date on the recent changes) is that the employee and the employer is invariably better off keeping the car out of the company, and the employee claims mileage (45p for the first 10,000 miles, 25p thereafter), the employee would submit mileage logs for the records that detail business usage and this would save hassle with valuations, depreciation, P11D benefit and your companies increased Class 1A Nic.

 

Like I say Frank - talk to your accountants - your thinking is to my mind - several years out of date.

 

Company cars now only really make sense if you have a fleet of high milage Reps on the road.

 

I still say that as you describe your situation - it should be reviewed in light of changes that came in after 2011 in particular.

 

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2013-07-10 8:30 AM

 

Well from my calculations you are crazy to keep them 5 year. It just does not add up.

 

The P11D benefits for the individual are based upon the list price of the car and by my calculations (From the HMRC website) it is a lot more than £8 a week for even the most basic of Corsa's that are "fully expensed as you originally said to me!

 

- but now you say "except fuel".

 

And don't forget you as the employer pay Class 1A Nic at 13.8% on the P11D benefit. So that is a further circa £270 per employee.

 

Assuming the vehicle goes into the company's balance sheet, the company would obviously own the vehicle so the company reclaims the costs of the car in full and the employee is subject to BIK issues on the personal usage, plus as I say above the company is subject to Class 1A contributions as well which you do not mention.

 

There are various BIK issues here which would normally mean the need for a comprehensive reply but frankly I cannot be arced now. Whatever you do has to be the correct option Frank - you will not have it anyother way!

 

But for sake of completness, there are various calculators and guides on HMRC site to help you with this

 

There are 2 basic scenarios, your client could pay the company back for the private miles, the rates of which are available on HMRC's site (they are tiered to engine size, etc), which may be beneficial re the companies class 1A's - talk to your accountant Frank - I am sure he can explain it to you.

 

There is a calculator that will let you know how much your employee will have to pay for the private use if they do not pay the company back, it is variously listed as the 'car fuel benefit calculator' or 'company car benefit calculator' or similar.

 

There have been a fair few changes in the rules re Company cars of late and you should check to see that what you are doing is still the best option

 

I have my doubts as you know but you seem to insist you know best! , see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cars/rule-changes.htm

 

You need to inform HMRC with a P46 (car) notification as well.

 

Current thinking across the board - (and despite what you infer - I have never said anything negative about your accountants - in fact I suggested you mention it to them as I think you are not up to date on the recent changes) is that the employee and the employer is invariably better off keeping the car out of the company, and the employee claims mileage (45p for the first 10,000 miles, 25p thereafter), the employee would submit mileage logs for the records that detail business usage and this would save hassle with valuations, depreciation, P11D benefit and your companies increased Class 1A Nic.

 

Like I say Frank - talk to your accountants - your thinking is to my mind - several years out of date.

 

Company cars now only really make sense if you have a fleet of high milage Reps on the road.

 

I still say that as you describe your situation - it should be reviewed in light of changes that came in after 2011 in particular.

 

 

 

I'm sorry Clive but you don't appear to be too good at calculations! The last Corsas we bought were about £11k retail and were diesel. The current BIK is 18% of the list price. So that's £1980. Employees pay tax of 20% of £1980 which is £396. Now, that by my reckoning is eight quid a week.

 

They only pay BIK on that, they don't pay it on the running expenses, such as servicing and tyres. We don't provide fuel as that would incur a separate BIK.

 

I love the way you tell me I'll have to fill in a P46! Do you deliberately try to insult my intelligence?

 

I've been doing this for thirty years Clive! Do you think that I don't know that I have to inform the revenue when a BIK changes? One thing I still do is run the spreadsheet for company cars and send in the P46s. It also helps me calculate our potential employers' NIC. I don't know too much about the more arcane charitable giving regulations, but that's bugger all to do with running a business!

 

As it happens we are now contemplating moving from diesels as my managers don't do a high mileage. The car we're looking at is also £11K (a Citroen) and its BIK based on its emissions is 13%. That's £6.00 a week Clive! Do the calculations again!

 

And I've told you twice that a major reason for giving staff a company car is to relieve them of the worry of service and repair costs if they owned it themselves. That has proved to be very beneficial in the past and is still a big draw when recruiting.

 

But what is most puzzling is your insistence that it's foolish to keep cars for long periods. Everyone knows that cars depreciate massively in the first couple of years and then depreciation slows down dramatically! Everyone knows that the cheapest way to run a car is to run it until its worth peanuts but before it starts needing expensive repairs!

 

But what's your advice? I want to give my key staff a company car. What would you do? Change it every two years and suffer massive depreciation then start all over again!

 

Your comments to me about telling me that I'm foolish for not owning the shops that I rent, which is impossible if you want to be in the right position and absolutely unaffordable for trades that also need high stock levels, proves to me that you actually have little experience of dealing with high class retailers in prime positions! But I wouldn't expect you to, it's not your job!

 

I'm about to take a shop in Liverpool costing £70K p,.a. It would be a million pounds to buy. The bank would need a personal guarantee for that amount of debt and if it went tits up I'd lose everything!

 

For a million quid I can open six new branches in top retail locations. Which do you think will make me more money? Which do you think will give me even more buying power?

 

My accountant, who backs my strategy, doesn't try to advise me on personal investments, he sends me to an IFA. I'm sure Clive that in being an IFA you're very experienced and give good advice.

 

Retailing however is a totally different ball game. I've had a total of forty years of it, nearly thirty with my own firm and the previous years in a partnership. I do know what I'm doing and the proof is in my balance sheet!

 

Please Clive, stick to being an IFA and leave business to the business accountants!

 

Sorry Malcolm but he just won't leave me alone and I will not be told that I don't know what I'm doing when my company's success and it's strong debt-free, cash-rich balance sheet proves the opposite!

 

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

This morning the Daily Telegraph has published the details and photos of the forty-odd prisoners who are on whole-life tariffs Don't read it if you are of a sensitive disposition! Some of their crimes are so bestial as to almost defy comprehension.

 

But what stands out is the number of them who killed once once, were imprisoned, subsequently released and then went on to commit even more horrific murders.

 

If these monsters had been hanged or imprisoned for life (whichever is your flavour of the month) then several innocent men and women would be alive today.