
The UK’s leading website and essential resource for #contractors & #freelancers. #IR35. All posts by CEO Dave Chaplin
UK
Joined March 2009
- Tweets29.5K
- Following702
- Followers8.3K
- Likes20.9K
Dave Chaplin - CEO, ContractorCalculator retweeted
Given the personal allowance will have been frozen for a decade at £12,570 - it's interesting to see what it would be when it's treated with the largesse of the minimum wage.
Dave Chaplin - CEO, ContractorCalculator retweeted
Last week I did an interview for ITV, promoting my new live show.
In the interview I say that Rupert Lowe has his legal bills paid for by Elon Musk. Rupert Lowe has contacted me to point out that that isn’t the case. Happy to set the record straight and apologise for the error.
Replying to @d_1awrence
Small businesses will continue to hunker down, not hire, and aim to weather the socialist storm.
Replying to @OozEmpire
Can they use the same turbo in the public sector.
Replying to @nickllih
Prices will go up. Ultimately the consumers pay.
Replying to @llewellynsteven @paullewismoney
Sure, it’s distributed. The OP needed a much simpler introduction to the basic theory. You’ve gone into advanced mode.
Replying to @estnonmeaculpa @paullewismoney
They’ve not published any detail. Policies are at slogan stage, and barely entering initiation/formulation.
Dave Chaplin - CEO, ContractorCalculator retweeted
Hi again, Charlotte. I'm copying in @HillsboroughSu1 AND @LawHillsborough and @DebatINQUEST here because your message has revealed to me something very important. You seem to genuinely believe that legislators (MPs etc) are included under the Duty of Candour and I assume the Misleading the Public offence?
I'm very sorry (and I'm angry about it which is I'm campaigning) but this isn't right. MPs have a carve out (just as the security services wanted before).
You are totally correct, and I completely agree with you, that Parliamentary Privilege (Article 9 Bill of Rights) will never be amended and so the new offences could only apply to acts outside of what is said and done in proceedings in Parliament.
For me, that's enough. I think that when legislators are speaking on television, the radio, social media, or at events etc outside their Parliaments, they should be held to account under the Misleading the Public offence. At present, they are not.
I also think it's completely insane that, in an inquest or an inquiry, if a member of Parliament is called to give evidence, they will not be required legally to abide by the Duty of Candour (whereas nearly everyone else who works for the public will be). It'll be a humiliation of that event and our Parliaments every time that happens.
You can see from my attached image of Schedule 2 that they are exempted. As are members of all Parliaments across the UK. If you don't believe me please just read schedule 2 now and you'll see. Link: bills.parliament.uk/publicat…
If you still doubt what I'm saying then please see the attached video of me questioning Pete Weatherby KC at a Garden Court Chambers event. He admits on camera that MPs (all legislators) are not included but Ministers are. Even his lawyer colleague didn't know that and apologised for getting it wrong so it's clear most people have no idea.
Perhaps let's have a call? The Hillsborough Bill must become law no matter what but if the law makers themselves aren't included then it'll enormously damage public trust in democracy as it'll be seen as hypocritical.
Up for a call to discuss? I think all legislators in the UK need to be included for acts outside their Parliaments.
Replying to @paullewismoney
Just type in the prompts I’ve given you and you might stop making them.
Replying to @llewellynsteven @paullewismoney
Because people bear tax. Not just shareholders.
Replying to @paullewismoney
You can certainly disagree with the wide body of long-standing tax theory if you wish. That’s your prerogative. Your last statement is a logical fallacy. But it’s true that only people can ultimately bear the burden of taxation, but not for the reason you suggest.
Replying to @paullewismoney
Wrong. Here’s your prompt to learn more: “In UK tell me about the interplay of corporation tax and the move from an imputation to classical system and the effective rates borne by shareholders.”
Replying to @paullewismoney
Julian is referring to where the economic burden of tax ultimately falls. It’s standard tax theory. Prompt: “Please explain the difference between taxes paid by a company and the economic burden of tax, referring to the economic incidence”
Replying to @DanNeidle
It's just old school server-side processing. Using the design concepts of Single Responsibilty and Model-View-Controller. Having calcs on the server can make automated unit testing easier and faster. Also throw in a bit of Design By Contract and matters can be far simpler from a software quality perspective.
Replying to @GonzoEyes @alexanderrX_
Yes, it's called DYOR. You should try it sometime. You might educate yourself.
Replying to @danielkempe
It’s even more surprising that HMRC expects 850,000 properly advised taxpayers to set up a non-statutory voluntary meeting with HMRC to get tax advice from them. HMRCs job is to check tax returns and challenge them. They can look at last years return, then need to use discovery for another 4 years and records are reasonably required. The case law on this is well traversed. A simple half page response will deal with this.
Replying to @_jaylawrence
Read by post and then read yours again.
Whenever Labour now set a target journalists need to ask if it a real target fully committees to or a stretch target. You know, like the promise of being pro business and pro growth.
Replying to @JohnHann04
A competent tax advisor will easily deal with this non-statutory request for a fishing expedition. But do so in a polite and courteous way.








