Serious questions and musings

[NuttySquirrel]

At what point is a pet too vicious to be allowed to live?

I've never given up on a rat before, but one of my current lot is an evil little [can't say what I want to call him anymore]. Completely un-handleable, and any body part with a foot of him is at risk. And when he bites, he bites to kill.
If you've never been bitten by an angry rat, it's a LOT worse than you'd think from such a small critter. We're talking "the bleeding won't stop" levels of injury.

And it's not just me, he's constantly attacking his cagemates as well.

My only thought right now (as I nurse my wounds) is, "how many layers of gardening gloves will I have to wear in order to get him in the carrier for a one way trip to the vet?"

Have you had him neutered? If not, that might be the first thing to consider as it could reduce a lot of his aggression.

Sounds like you will need to separate him from his cagemates though unfortunately.

He's your rat, but I'd only suggest considering that one way trip if the vet thinks there is no other option.

 

[Slugjc]

Can you not put in the local rat community, also know as the London underground.

 

[DiogoJ42]

Have you had him neutered? If not, that might be the first thing to consider as it could reduce a lot of his aggression.

Sounds like you will need to separate him from his cagemates though unfortunately.

He's your rat, but I'd only suggest considering that one way trip if the vet thinks there is no other option.

Neutering, (or any surgery) is incredibly risky with rodents. We've had enough of them "not make it" in the past that it just doesn't seem worth the risk, let alone the expense.

Just to be clear, I'm taking this lightly. In almost two decades and over 40 of the little critters, this is the first time I have even considered this. I think he may be a lost cause.

But don't worry, I have already been overruled by m'lady.

 

[Jonathan]

Neutering, (or any surgery) is incredibly risky with rodents. We've had enough of them "not make it" in the past that it just doesn't seem worth the risk, let alone the expense.

I remember how furious you were after one such occasion, and I don't blame you for not wanting to risk it again.

 

[rob666]

...But don't worry, I have already been overruled by m'lady.

Story of my life mate.
The last dog, which I loved, would not have happened if I had been part of the decision.

Have you thought about a chain mail glove?
You can get a decent one for fifty quid.
Five knuckle shuffle for heavy metal fans.

 

[Matt N]

Sorry to barge in with a wholly unrelated question, but I had a question related to taxation that I wondered whether anyone could answer.

I received the payslip from my first full week of work today, and I had a look over it because the wage I received in my bank account was perhaps a tad lower than I’d expected based on the take home percentage from my first 2 days, which was higher.

I had a look through the slip, and some of it was expected; I had things like student loan repayment added to the deductions this week, which I’d anticipated prior.

However, something caught my eye; two other deductions on my payslip were for employer NI and the apprenticeship levy, which appeared to be scaled as a percentage of my wage. I was under the impression that the employer paid these, so I was a bit confused as to why they were deducted from my pay.

It then occurred to me, though, that I am currently a contract employee, working under an umbrella company inside IR35, as opposed to a permanent employee employed by the company I’m working for. So what I was wondering is; as a contract employee, am I paying employer NI and such myself because I’m effectively treated in tax terms as my own employer?

I was under the impression that because I’m inside IR35 and not self-employed, my umbrella company was my employer in legal terms, with them handling my income tax and NI as if I was employed permanently as well as starting a pension, but I wondered if my status as a contract employee meant that responsibility for paying employer NI and such gets passed to me whether I’m inside IR35 or not.

Does anyone know any more?

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Sorry to barge in with a wholly unrelated question, but I had a question related to taxation that I wondered whether anyone could answer.

I received the payslip from my first full week of work today, and I had a look over it because the wage I received in my bank account was perhaps a tad lower than I’d expected based on the take home percentage from my first 2 days, which was higher.

I had a look through the slip, and some of it was expected; I had things like student loan repayment added to the deductions this week, which I’d anticipated prior.

However, something caught my eye; two other deductions on my payslip were for employer NI and the apprenticeship levy, which appeared to be scaled as a percentage of my wage. I was under the impression that the employer paid these, so I was a bit confused as to why they were deducted from my pay.

It then occurred to me, though, that I am currently a contract employee, working under an umbrella company inside IR35, as opposed to a permanent employee employed by the company I’m working for. So what I was wondering is; as a contract employee, am I paying employer NI and such myself because I’m effectively treated in tax terms as my own employer?

I was under the impression that because I’m inside IR35 and not self-employed, my umbrella company was my employer in legal terms, with them handling my income tax and NI as if I was employed permanently as well as starting a pension, but I wondered if my status as a contract employee meant that responsibility for paying employer NI and such gets passed to me whether I’m inside IR35 or not.

Does anyone know any more?

Ah the life of a contractor!

Your employer is responsible for paying Employer's National Insurance and the Apprenticeship Levy. As you are inside IR35, your umbrella company is your employer for legal and tax purposes.

Despite what your payslip suggests upon first glance, your employer is paying these and you are not. The confusion stems from how an umbrella company processes its income and presents its payslips.

A permanent employee agrees a salary with their employer, for example, £40,000 per year. The employer then pays Employer's NI, pension contributions, etc, on top of that salary. These are costs to the business that a permanent employee never sees on their payslip. The employee's payslip only shows deductions from their £40,000 gross salary (income tax, employee's NI, student loan, pension contributions and the rest).

An umbrella contractor agrees an "assignment rate" or "day rate" with the client/agency. This rate is higher than a permanent employee's equivalent salary because it is a single pot of money that must cover all employment costs.

The rate the client pays your umbrella company is the total cost of engaging you. The umbrella company has a legal obligation to pay the Employer's NI and Apprenticeship Levy from this pot of money before they can calculate your gross salary. This is what's being reflected on your pay slip.

TLDR: You are not paying the employer's taxes yourself. The employer's taxes are being paid from the total assignment rate and your payslip is transparently showing you this entire calculation.

You can always ask payroll for a detailed explanation too.

 

[DiogoJ42]

All taxation is theft.

 

[rob666]

Digital id.
What about people like me who chose not to own a mobile.
Rice grain microchip on back of neck like the family pet?
Bar code tattoo on forehead?
Five years and counting...I need to know.

 

[BSwiss]

Digital id.
What about people like me who chose not to own a mobile.

Deported.

 

[rob666]

Bit hard when my passport is at least a decade out of date...
And don't give me any of that "Put it on your driving license photo id" nonsense...not got one of them either...just good old pink and green paper stuff.

 

[BarryZola]

I wonder if this new digital ID card thing will come with new powers for the police to demand to see your ID (and therefore get your name and address etc) in the interests of making sure you're legally in this country, even if you are not under suspicion of committing a crime? You see these auditor types on FB etc refusing to give the police their name as they have not committed a crime but I'm wondering if this might come in handy for the police in a back-door kind of way?

 

[Dave]

All taxation is theft.

You refuse NHS care and don’t use the countries infrastructure then I assume?

Digital id.
What about people like me who chose not to own a mobile.
Rice grain microchip on back of neck like the family pet?
Bar code tattoo on forehead?
Five years and counting...I need to know.

Reading the details the plan is to offer an alternative for those who don’t use mobile phones.

I wonder if this new digital ID card thing will come with new powers for the police to demand to see your ID (and therefore get your name and address etc) in the interests of making sure you're legally in this country, even if you are not under suspicion of committing a crime? You see these auditor types on FB etc refusing to give the police their name as they have not committed a crime but I'm wondering if this might come in handy for the police in a back-door kind of way?

It’s not compulsory to carry, and police can already demand to see your ID now, you just don’t have to carry any (you have a specific amount of time to present to police station with your ID), which appears to be the same plan with this new thing.

Honestly despite being left of centre I have never seen the issue with compulsory ID even when it was planned previously. I’m aware of the risks, but most of Europe have ID cards and there have been no civil liberties issues linked to them.

So long as it’s not compulsory carry and only confirms ID and doesn’t have other data linked to it I’m fairly relaxed.

 

[pluk]

One person I went to primary school with now has 3 children, the eldest of whom is 5 years old, and is married!

5 year olds shouldn't be getting married.

I wonder if this new digital ID card thing will come with new powers for the police to demand to see your ID (and therefore get your name and address etc) in the interests of making sure you're legally in this country, even if you are not under suspicion of committing a crime? You see these auditor types on FB etc refusing to give the police their name as they have not committed a crime but I'm wondering if this might come in handy for the police in a back-door kind of way?

There will be no requirement for individuals to carry their ID or be asked to produce it - but digital ID will be mandatory as a means of proving your Right to Work.

If anything the opposite could be true if people chose to carry it. In cases of questionable identification when police suspect you may have committed an offence a person could prove their ID rather than being arrested and fingerprinted to ascertain true ID, which happens currently and is the grounds of necessityfor many arrests. It is oddly difficult to properly identify someone at the roadside currently considering the technology available.

 

[rob666]

5 year olds shouldn't be getting married.



There will be no requirement for individuals to carry their ID or be asked to produce it - but digital ID will be mandatory as a means of proving your Right to Work.

If anything the opposite could be true if people chose to carry it. In cases of questionable identification when police suspect you may have committed an offence a person could prove their ID rather than being arrested and fingerprinted to ascertain true ID, which happens currently and is the grounds of necessityfor many arrests. It is oddly difficult to properly identify someone at the roadside currently considering the technology available.

Hey, my season pass for the Beach has saved my skin more than once!

 

[BarryZola]

It’s not compulsory to carry, and police can already demand to see your ID now, you just don’t have to carry any (you have a specific amount of time to present to police station with your ID), which appears to be the same plan with this new thing.

You actually don't have to stop and tell or show them anything unless you're under suspicion of committing an offence:

Police powers to stop and search: your rights

The police can stop and question you at any time - they can search you depending on the situation.

www.gov.uk

Anyway, personally, I'm not bothered either way about these cards. The government and corporations already have access to most of my information if they want it anyway, and I'm not up to no good.

 

[DiogoJ42]

How are people not doing a Nepal right now‽

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

How are people not doing a Nepal right now‽

I don't know. How are you not doing a Nepal right now?

---

Whilst I'm generally a tad uncomfortable with the idea of Digital ID cards, I do understand the benefits.

My largest issue is with the rhetoric being used to introduce them this time around. Namely that it will crack down on illegal migration and illegal employment.

You already need to supply an original photographic government issued ID, in addition to your NI number and address information, to become employed in this country, through the "Right to Work" checks. It is a criminal offence to not comply. A Digital ID will make this process smoother, but it's no more a deterrent than the current system.

A Digital ID will not prevent people from disappearing into the shadow economy either. The only people this will meaningfully impact, if we take the government at their word, are law abiding employers and employees.

If you want to introduce Digital ID cards let's at least have an honest conversation about the reasons why they're beneficial and why they should be introduced. Let's not attempt to use the current climate of hatred towards foreigners for every policy announcement.

 

[Dave]

You actually don't have to stop and tell or show them anything unless you're under suspicion of committing an offence:

Police powers to stop and search: your rights

The police can stop and question you at any time - they can search you depending on the situation.

www.gov.uk

Anyway, personally, I'm not bothered either way about these cards. The government and corporations already have access to most of my information if they want it anyway, and I'm not up to no good.

I wasn’t suggesting they have the right to just stop you, my point was if the police want to confirm your ID with reasonable suspicion of crime they can already do so. It’s been stated that this would also be no requirement to carry and therefore no change in the police powers to ID you.

As for the points outlined by @GooseOnTheLoose (sorry can’t be bothered to reload to quote), I think the benefit of this over current employment ID is dodgy employers when caught just say they made the checks but the employee presented counterfeit docs, so they often get away with any punishment. This method they wouldn’t be able to do that, obviously fully criminal enterprises won’t care either way but that’s a matter for police.

 

[BarryZola]

I wasn’t suggesting they have the right to just stop you, my point was if the police want to confirm your ID with reasonable suspicion of crime they can already do so.

I specifically stated it being a situation where they're not suspicious of you having committed a crime. Then you replied to that exact post saying that they do have the right to ask for your details whenever they want...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read it properly