Free laptops and broadband for poor families!

[willman]

You've spent the entire thread trying to derail it by ranting on about office workers using company products for personal use, but it's irrelevant to the topic.

 

In case you've forgotten, I'm arguing that it's unfair to give lazy families who choose not to work free luxury goods when working people have to pay for the same things themselves. Quite what a call centre worker checking his email in his lunch hour has to do with it, god only knows.

 

Probably because the self employed and employed using services for free are the ones who don't want the poor children to have a laptop.

[Number Six]

Your entire argument (if it can be called that) supporting the handout of millions of pounds of computer equipment, is that the employed can use a computer that is owned by a business. The two concepts are entirely unrelated!

 

That's as maybe, but please also consider

 

a) willman thinks this avenue of discussion - which he started - isn't worth persuing now that his argument has been undermined by several posters

b) willman has the word 'Moderator' under his name, and is therefore correct. Even when he isn't.

[Number Six]

Probably because the self employed and employed using services for free are the ones who don't want the poor children to have a laptop.

 

Calm down dear, your wild and inaccurate generalisations and assumptions are now coming across as the ramblings of the terminally bitter!

[truman]

b) willman has the word 'Moderator' under his name, and is therefore correct. Even when he isn't.

 

Actually,for this forum,that explains a lot....instead of being sea green it should be a pinky sort of red..

[willman]

No, using a work laptop for some personal use is not a fiddle. It's not uncommon even amongst the non self-employed.

Mobile phones are specifically exempt under HMRC rules, so my business can pay for that and I don't have to work out what was a personal call.

Given that I do use my laptop for work, and couldn't work without it, I'd say that it's a valid business expense.

And as BT Trautmann said, the number of personal letters I've sent in the last decade can be counted on one hand (without the use of any fingers).

 

Your entire argument (if it can be called that) supporting the handout of millions of pounds of computer equipment, is that the employed can use a computer that is owned by a business. The two concepts are entirely unrelated!

 

My point exactly Cyclone- they're exempt so you don't have to prove anything. You can quite easily claim for all you personal calls and never personally pay a penny or you recieve a tax reduction.

I'm not disputing that items are valid or that people are doing what they feel to be correct.

I personally can't condone any action whilst villifiying the poorest of the poor for what they might do. Its not an argument its an opinion - loads of people getting more than £300 in their lifetime for free - yet they don't want to allow someone a laptop.

[willman]

That's as maybe, but please also consider

 

a) willman thinks this avenue of discussion - which he started - isn't worth persuing now that his argument has been undermined by several posters

b) willman has the word 'Moderator' under his name, and is therefore correct. Even when he isn't.

 

If all else fails attack the poster not the post.

[Number Six]

loads of people getting more than £300 in their lifetime for free - yet they don't want to allow someone a laptop.

 

Or, they don't think it sounds like an efficient use of resources, although details of how it would work are a lacking.

[convert]

Probably because the self employed and employed using services for free are the ones who don't want the poor children to have a laptop.

 

Sorry but I disagree.

 

I don't think that anyone objects to the poor having laptops; they object to a corrupt Government handing out scarece resources that could be better used for other schemes that would have far more benefit to the Education system.

 

I don't agree with a desperate administration trying to buy it's way back into power by soundbyte polices.

 

I may have free internet via work, but I also have it at home. I pay for it as I deem it to be an extra that is useful for my family and I.

 

As I've said before, if ANY of these families due to benefit from the scheme have large screen TV's and Pay TV subscriptions they should be made to cancel those and provide a PC and internet for their Child.

 

It's about priorities. Some people put their children first, some think it better to smoke, drink and watch endless re-runs on Sky.

[Number Six]

If all else fails attack the poster not the post.

 

a) What else has 'failed'? I think your 'argument from envy and misunderstanding' has been fairly comprehensively dismantled.

 

b) How have I attacked you? I've said you are wrong, I've said you are a mod. I've said you started this avenue of discussion about tax 'fidling' I haver said that several posters have undermined your argument. I have said you have posted that this discussion isn't worth having.

 

All of these are true statements. The truth is neutral. It cannot be an attack. Sure, you might not like it, but that doesn't make it un-true.

[Passitthen]

Do you think that there is maybe a chance that they will reimburse us that have struggled to purchase their own laptop ( im still paying) and broadband connection/useage cost.?

 

This may be also in his mind eh'?

 

 

Pakistan in Urdu language == " Land of the Pure"

Pakistan= P for Punjap/ A for Afgahanistan/ K for Kashmir/ I for Sind and Stan for Baluchistan; Set up by the whisky drinking/ 50 fags a day Pakistan founder Jinnah.

 

Just in passing to concentrate my mind on other subjects than my expected reimbursement.