Honestly, in the UK I doubt anyone would care what you're wearing unless you turn up in a blue bathrobe complete with a rubber ducky. Which, to be fair, is a cool look š.
Creative industry, eh? I'd wear anything that is classed as smart casual and then see from there. Likely it will be even more relaxed but if you want to play it safe.
I won't comment on the quality of the jobs, I honestly don't know enough about what happens in a port (apart from what happens in a dock town stays in a dock town š). But it was / is a billion of investment. That's not chump change by any means. The UK can't be turning its nose up at investment because of morals and a sense of duty. We don't have the headroom to do so. We're massively in debt. That's just the reality.
I totally get what you're saying. But I still feel that a large part of this resignation storyline is because she rocked the boat.
But from the company in questions perspective why wouldn't you turn around and say, "ok then this $1billion can go to Ireland or the Netherlands, see ya". The UK government isn't in a position to be shooing away business investment of that scale. That's what almost happened before the UK government had to make grovelling apologies to said company. Hiring foreign workers over UK workers sucks, but you can't ignore the huge investment that would benefit hundreds more.
These are the kinds of macro chess games governments have to play. And this former minister hasn't made it easy for them to play it.
It will be this revelation plus the fact that she bad mouthed a major investor in the UK whilst in opposition. When you're trying to encourage businesses to grow in the UK and they call out that one of your cabinet ministers is openly against you that's not great for the government.
That's not how it works. It's not about setting up a company to make yourself under the threshold. They're only under the threshold because of how they've structured their finances.
Set up company.
Be director of company.
Also be only employee of company as a separate legal entity.
Get people to pay the company for any work the employee (i.e. you) does.
Pay the employee (i.e. you) a maximum of just below the threshold for income tax each year.
Anything else starys in the company.
The company pays the director in the form of dividends (i.e. you) at a reduced tax rate any extra money it may have collected.
You've saved income tax entirely and you've reduced your tax liability on anything else.
Here's Kate's registered companies which are free to look up online by anyone. Whilst Kate the employee scrapes by under the tax threshold and has to graft on Onlyfans, Kate the director is in charge of a company that at the year end 2023 owed Ā£164,586 (2022- Ā£172,382) to the director (i.e. Kate).
According to a census conducted by the Musiciansā Union, nearly half of working musicians in the UK earn less than Ā£14,000 a year from their craft
Interestingly just under the income tax threshold. So you could quite easily set yourself up as a Ltd with you as the director and sole employee, claim the full income tax threshold as the employee and live off the dividends as a director whilst saving tax there too.
I wonder if these musicians have considered a more tax efficient route for their craft? What a crazy idea. Of course musicians are famous for assiduously paying all the taxes they can.
Someone with more time than me might be interested in looking up the holding companies for Kate Nash or Lilly Allen and checking out their finances. šš.
Very good points. I walk to our gym and I suppose that is a luxury. Even better if everyone had a place they could easily walk to. And also +1 on the child care point.
Is that ... Is that a crack pipe?