But if he's a Walter Mitty character
And his pseudo legal posts suggest it, why bother asking him for information that you know will be suspect?
To allow him to discredit himself.
But if he's a Walter Mitty character
And his pseudo legal posts suggest it, why bother asking him for information that you know will be suspect?
You do understand it was you who claimed that an off-payroll “employee” is a non-standard employee. Then you are stupid enough to think that me correcting you is some sort of confession to being an off-payroll worker.He must think he's clever.
The more holes he digs the further he falls in.
And some believe what he says too
Placing him in the top 1% of income tax payers.so the calculation is 300 cars at £50k each and 1% commission
300x£50000x0.01 = £150,000
Plus basic
Minus pension contributions (possibly limited in his case to £60,000) which would greatly reduce his tax due, and possibly his NI.
Nonsense.To allow him to discredit himself.
Nonsense.
An off payroll employee is NOT a standard employee, no matter how you try to swerve around.You do understand it was you who claimed that an off-payroll “employee” is a non-standard employee. Then you are stupid enough to think that me correcting you is some sort of confession to being an off-payroll worker.
Where has that been said ?They don’t understand.
Apparently it’s impossible to be a PAYE earner on that sort of money.
I just don't believe he is in the top 1 % of earners as a standard paye employee (with no control over his wage deductions).
No it isn't.Apparently it’s impossible to be a PAYE earner on that sort of money.
Yes. I was correct you.I used the wrong term.
But you clearly said. .....
You assume that off-payroll workers are non-standard employees - its wrong.
They are not standard employees !