Working Hours? Do you ?

[Jack]

Who in their right mind would want to live in small-town N. Yorks/Co. Durham, average age 70+? Bad enough trying to operate a company from the a***-end of beyond.....high-speed internet? What's one of those? At least we're all getting really good at driving on snow....

I would.........

[Dinosaur]

So why you living in a castle (apparently not as grand as it sounds) somewhere else? }

Forgot to mention the joys of all the horse boxes going to and from what appears to be the world's most popular horse-vet just round the corner - hours of entertainment driving along very slowly gazing up a horse's a***, and in the case of a colleague, occasional exciting but brief moments of having your car crushed by a runaway horse-box followed by trips in an ambulance and (much later) to a car-dealer.....

[Bodger51]

I agree with Uo1 on the level of importance and significance that should be considered for Zero VAT.

However my concerns are not quite the same as how Uo1 is depicting them at the surface level.

When we consider the Zero VAT factor we have to ask the principle issue of whether the activities are assigned at either the Logistical Capacitance or Logistical Supportive scales, where the impact within Organisational Budgetary allotments underlines the organisational performance.
Not just as the Work Flow management, but to incorporate the Logistical Flow management too.

Where this comes in, is at the Trustee level where Quarterly meetings are evidently insufficient, to support potential budgetary pitfalls.

Working on the below sums Trustee consideration can be 3 times longer than breech intervention requirements, at the contractual level, whilst at the organisational level, a hiring policy effects the breech limits, where the selection process can be loaded.


Logistical Capacitance:
Working within the contractual environ, where if say you had 5 archaeological sites for a month, that alone would breech Budget level for Trustee considerations.

This would be on the basis of employing 10 people per site to work in-office, on-site and as specialists.

This equates to over ?50,000 at the work-flow level, whilst logistical support is assumed to be able to be drawn from pre-existing support structures.


Logistical Support:
Alternatively employing say 200 people for a year, would equate to ?250 per person per annum, or ?5 per week (an interesting sum).

Whilst employing 40 people the same process would equate to a 3 Week pay packet for per person, over the course of a year.Potentially based upon the period in which people would focus their time by volunteering on training excavations and potentially being paid for their efforts.


In my experience of working within Logistical Capacitance, individuals fall by the wayside, whilst hiring policy is culturally transformative and plainly too independent of Trustee interest for the boards interest in organisational oversight.

As such if you do not operate within the umbrella of operational Trustees’ then you can find yourself as isolated from the supportive Trustee Culture, not Corporate Culture, which may not be down to elections, but invitations.


I’d say if you work in a Charity and never met a Trustee of Patron, then the problem is beyond solving outside of job descriptions, which may not support Charity Status activities by negligible inactive reference or absence.

I worked in archaeology for while and I never ONCE saw or met a Trustee, in any form of walk around.
As such I think it shows the level of disparity between the stakeholders and the influence they have upon determining Profit to Charity ratios.

:face-topic:
In returning to the Topic are they looking for new volunteer sub-committee trustees, or will it remain tacit NON-voted disinterest, or patron charged?
B)

Would have made sense if there was any support.
Too late now to cry over spilt milk

So don't worry about it

[Oxbeast]

In returning to the Topic are they looking for new volunteer sub-committee trustees, or will it remain tacit NON-voted disinterest, or patron charged?

This is a new definition of 'returning to the topic'. If you and Unit want to discuss VAT, perhaps you should start your own thread about it.

[Wax]

Back to the topic in terms of travel what would be classed as your normal place of work (travel to this being exempt from mileage claims for tax purposes). I was advised once by a tax inspector that I could claim the mileage and parking fees for my travel as a selfemployed person to an office for up to two years beyond which I would be considered employed at that office and the tax office would start looking at the employer as they would be obviously avoiding additional employers taxes they should be paying. The work was truely self employed as I negotiated rates, hours and days and had other work running in parallel. I do wonder if one of the main advantages for selfemployed diggers could be the claiming of travel expenses.

[kevin wooldridge]

I do wonder if one of the main advantages for selfemployed diggers could be the claiming of travel expenses.

Not just self-employed diggers. The tax office principle of 'a temporary site' also applies to employed persons, if you can show evidence that your employment requires you to be at a temporary workplace and that your employer doesn't recompense you for travel costs to said site... As an employed person however this would require completing a self assessment tax return and once you start down that road you will be doing so for the rest of your natural......so maybe a lot of trouble for a fairly minor sum.

[Unitof1]

couldnt resist this one wax

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/vat/fuel-power.htm

apparently the inland revenue tired to move 130000 people off self assesment last year http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17866817 although it obviously has not gone smoothly but possibly in the future it might become a bit more fluid. What I dont understand is why everybody cant legitimatly claim their travel expenses. Somebody has to live closer to work and somebody has to live furter away. I dont realy see why people on paye accept this rule.

[Wax]

Not just self-employed diggers. The tax office principle of 'a temporary site' also applies to employed persons, if you can show evidence that your employment requires you to be at a temporary workplace and that your employer doesn't recompense you for travel costs to said site... As an employed person however this would require completing a self assessment tax return and once you start down that road you will be doing so for the rest of your natural......so maybe a lot of trouble for a fairly minor sum.

This is also my understanding there is nothing to stop a person who is employed claiming various things against tax if their employer is not paying them the expenses they are entiled to under current tax rules. Expenses are at the descretion of the employer and may be more or less than the entitlements. It is up to the individual to make sure they get what they can under current tax rules (and pay the Tax man his due). However as Kevin says you need to complete a self assesment tax form which is not as daunting as one might think as they are on line. You also need to keep scruplous records including reciepts. The rule with the tax man is to be honest and you might be surprised at the help they will give you.

[kevin wooldridge]

However as Kevin says you need to complete a self assesment tax form which is not as daunting as one might think as they are on line. You also need to keep scruplous records including reciepts. The rule with the tax man is to be honest and you might be surprised at the help they will give you.

When I worked more or less permanently in the UK I claimed for clothing, laundry, travel, some books, tools, and some capital expenses (computer, camera etc) all as an employed rather than self-employed person. HMRC does not allow for initial expenditure for many of these items, but does allow for cost of replacement and maintenance.....The daftest tax officer I ever got was concerned at my expenditure on laundry and carried out an especially in depth assessment of my claim one year. For that I was required to take photgraphs of the laundrette I used and its displayed price list as this was the only item for which I didn't have receipts. I guess on average I could claim expenses of about ?600 per year of which I got roughly 20-25 percent back as a rebate...that was also the year I turned up in Glasgow to meet him face to face (to his surprise) cos the Museum of London tax affairs at that time were dealt with by the Glasgow IR office....well I was passing.

[Dinosaur]

I've also had a surprisingly good result by turning up in person at a tax office, they really don't seem to be expecting it! - in my case the junior flunky at the desk was absolutely useless, but after I'd demanded to see someone more senior the whole thing was sorted in 10 minutes :face-approve: