This is why I don't come to Slashdot any more.
And yet you are here.
This is why I don't come to Slashdot any more.
And yet you are here.
Many people in the UK don't do a tax return and their tax is exactly correct at the end of the year.
This is accomplished in several ways: 1. Just like the USA, employers and other entities send data to HMRC. 2. Many allowances are limited to basic rate tax, so the amount of the allowance doesn't change based on income. 3. Interest and dividends are taxed at source. and probably the most significant difference: 4. Employers calculate tax to be deducted on a rolling basis (taking account of prior income and taxes already deducted), not as individual months. 5. Instead of a W4 which employees complete, HMRC sends the employer a tax code, which is used to calculate tax deductions, based on the employees actual circumstances.
What's wrong with that? Does she want this guy immediately fired no question asked? If it really is a first offence tell him to knock it off and move on from there,
You did not read the article, did you?
It wasn't his first offence, although HR lied about this, claiming that it was.
He didn't knock it off. Also, her career at the company was affected because she made the report.
What he did should have resulted in an instant dismissal. Retaliation should have resulted in dismissals. Covering up the prior acts by the man should have resulted in dismissals in HR.
A religion is not a race, and discriminating against a religion that has repeatedly attacked us and plotted to attack us
Let's not forget his comments about Mexicans. But more importantly, the attackers have universally been men. Perhaps we should ban men? I mean, it's not like non-muslims have done terrorist acts like the Oklahoma bombing, is it?
What you are trying to do is split hairs in order to justify supporting a bigot.
What he did was definitely profiling. His approaches were based on falsehoods. For example, the idea that we can't vet Syrian refugees -- Syrians have family booklets that give a lot of information about them and allow effective vetting.
But let's get back to his attitudes towards women. Do you support a man cheating on his wife? Do you support divorce and remarriage? Do you support disrespecting women through unwanted sexual attacks?
Why do you care that I prefer mobility without crippling debt?
My debt is not crippling. My mortgage payments are less than rent would be. I have tenants paying rent that covers more than the mortgage on the houses in which they live.
I am not the one getting my knickers in a twist over debt: you seem to be the person with an irrational aversion to debt. Your idol declares himself he king of debt, but you think that ordinary people should not use sensible amounts of debt?
I have no problem with your choices. I just note that it shows a lack of financial acumen on your part.
As for that mobility: I have worked (as in received a paycheck and paid taxes) in 4 different countries. In how many countries have you worked?
Just don't fuck up the planet for the rest of us ok?
No, because Trump is going to do that. His pick for the EPA has a history. But, then I am sure that you will just dismiss that as untrue.
Your 'disturbing facts' are more a projection of a corporation that has fed you whatever it wants in order to get the ratings it needs to charge for advertising. There might be a kernel of truth but the rest is hugely overblown. Anyone that is capable of objectively looking at what's been presented from both side of the extremes should be intelligent enough to read between the lines.
LOL. I suppose the "grab them by the pussy" video was fake? I suppose the documented cases of failure to pay his bills are fake? I suppose the cases of racism in housing were fake? I suppose that the recent racist executive order was fake?
These are not "projections". They are facts that you want to pretend don't exist. Good luck in your fantasy land.
As I said before, your financial acumen is lacking. Why would you admire someone who uses debt to invest in property, yet think that using debt to buy several houses is bad (yes, I own more than one).
You are badly in denial (and as they say, it's not just a river).
I take it that my supposition that you are religious is correct. As I suspected, you cannot reconcile your religious beliefs with your support for Trump. That's because no Christian person should support him. He isn't even sincere in his opinion on Roe vs Wade: he held a contrary opinion just a few years ago. He is just mugging for the crowd. Putting on a show for the dumb.
I can see that public forums have become useless as sites for open debate.
In other words, you know your point of view can't be sustained, so you would prefer to not have it challenged.
Based on some of your other posts, I suspect that you are a religious person. If this assumption is incorrect, then you can ignore most of the rest of this post.
What I see is someone who, despite some education has done poorly in life: you claim that you don't have much debt, but then, you don't appear to have many assets. You aspire to move your family into a customized bus. Really? You aspire to live in a bus? Perhaps what is clear is that you don't actually have much financial acumen. While you can pay your bills, you are not accumulating assets. Perhaps it's your inability to accumulate assets, despite working professional jobs that affects your viewpoint on Trump.
Personally, I have a lot of debt. But, I have assets that are worth much more.
But coming back to my supposition that you are a religious person, let me suggest that it is this aspect of your character that causes you to disbelieve the mainstream media. Trump is a misogynist, a racist, a person who doesn't pay his debts. These should disqualify any religious people from supporting him, so, a religious person (apart from those that hold to the prosperity theology) has to pretend that these facts don't exist. Since these facts are widely reported, you have to convince yourself that the media that convey these facts are not credible.
You can only survive if you put yourself in a bubble and pretend that these disturbing facts are untrue.
You should probably get some psychological help, since the inner conflicts you must be experiencing will make life difficult.
Prove it. "news" corporations are not acceptable as sources.
What you are saying is that someone else should prove their assertion, while you have proven none of your own, and by the way, you reserve the right to discount any sources that the other person might cite.
Let me rephrase what you are saying: "la, la, la
Your argument is that he is qualified to be in the White House because he inherited a bunch of money. Essentially, he is in the White House because of an accident of birth: you are arguing for something like a hereditary monarchy if his money qualifies him to be there.
His wealth and possessions are not impressive because he inherited the bulk of his wealth and would be wealthier had he not managed it himself.
Why do you think he refused to disclose his tax returns? We know he didn't pay taxes for a decade, so what worse information is there in his returns? Since image is everything to him, I suspect that his tax returns would show that his wealth is far smaller than he claims.
He's someplace I wish I could be, with resources I wish I had. To me, that's pretty damn successful.
I suspect that many, many people could be in the same position as him, had they got the same start in life as Trump had.
The best answer is always ECONOMIC.
That assumes rational thinking in the administration.
That does not compute.