captain cab wrote:
Are you suggesting that owners that double shift there vehicles dont declare this income to the Inland Revenue? I doubt this will be the case, the inland revenue regularly check vehicle milages.
My dear Cap, you surprise me. "No" is the answer to your question. I'm suggesting exactly what I wrote and it doesn't say what you just implied.
I would prefer it, if you addressed what I said and not what you might wish me to say.
If I was going to say what you suggested I might be saying, I would have no doubt said it in the first place, It may help if you read once again what I actually said.
Quote:
Surely the income attained from an additional driver is a private matter between the cab owner and driver? with of course the revenue getting there 22%
Perhaps if I inquired about the income of a named individual owner in the first place then the response from you may have been appropriate. But seeing as I didn't, I can only assume you wish to broaden the subject at your own behest.
Just so you know what I said I'll type it again.
"You conveniently omit the fact that most owners would have had an additional income of several thousand pounds per annum from an additional driver. Does this extra unearned income not count?"Does that spell it out? Or do you believe that most owners let other individuals drive their vehicles for free?
Quote:
The motivation behind purchasing a plate / business is to be your own boss with a secured form of income.
Here's what I said!
"A great many people have suggested that the motivation for buying a plate is driven by the desire to secure employment and not for any profit that might accrue from plate values."Does that look similar to what you have just written? The reason why I wrote those words is because it is what the TGWU and the various trade bodies have been brainwashing us with for years. The funny thing is that it only applies to restricted authorities.
So perhaps you can see the irony, not my words but a varying degree of Taxi Trade bodies over many years. I was wondering who would pick up on that paragraph?
I suspect, each individual has their own reasons for purchasing a plate in a restricted authority. Not least the amount of track money they pay out.
Quote:
Are you suggesting that the public are worse off through this arrangement than the alternative currently in operation on the Wirral?
If I suggest something, I make a point of spelling it out loud and clear and that’s what I did in this post. For some reason you chose to ignore what I wrote and replied with a post that was full of inferences on what I might have suggested.
The post is clear and precise, it points out the absence of unearned income that would offset any plate value loss in the Wirral, or any other place for that matter. To me that suggests one thing and that is the person who wrote the original post didn't take into account the unearned income I highlighted. I don't know how you arrive at the assumption that I was inquiring about personal details between two individuals?
Regards
JD
Login
Register
FAQ
