In a (WiFiless) Carlisle cafe this morning wanting to catch up with work e-mails before going to visit a client, so I plugged my dongle in.
3Connect mobile broadband said it wanted to download an update, so I let it... and what did it do?
Uninstalled itself, that's what.
Grrr.
And there was me with work to do and not time to drive the 10 miles home and back again to pick up the installation info.
So I guessed that a chain cafe would be my best option for WiFi and went round the corner to Starbucks.
They have WiFi. Good point. It's complimentary if you put £2 on a Starbucks card. Brilliant point.
So I registered for that.
And now it looks like I can use WiFi at any Starbucks I like (and there's plenty of them), on unlimited visits to Starbucks in the UK and Ireland (so long as I buy a drink at each visit of course), on any computer. It doesn't matter if I have my work Mac or my PC netbook with me. No software to download, unlike the 3Connect.
Looking good.
Friday, 30 October 2009
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Winds of change!
As you may have seen on FreeAgent's company blog, I'm very happy to have joined their team as their tame accountant.
So the content of this blog will change a bit going forward.
I'm going to keep away from writing about accounting software and other accounting matters here.
But I am still keen to write about customer service and so I'm going to keep this blog on to write about that.
I'm also going to start a new foodie blog, because my husband Matt and I love cooking and eating good food. And we also love checking out bed-and-breakfasts. So once I've decided on a snappy title for that blog, I'll put it up here.
So the content of this blog will change a bit going forward.
I'm going to keep away from writing about accounting software and other accounting matters here.
But I am still keen to write about customer service and so I'm going to keep this blog on to write about that.
I'm also going to start a new foodie blog, because my husband Matt and I love cooking and eating good food. And we also love checking out bed-and-breakfasts. So once I've decided on a snappy title for that blog, I'll put it up here.
UPDATE: The blog is called "Great British Food and B&B's" and you can find it here.
Dennis Howlett would be proud of me - he had to give me a great deal of encouragement to make me take up blogging, but now I've started, I can't stop. It's addictive :-)
Dennis Howlett would be proud of me - he had to give me a great deal of encouragement to make me take up blogging, but now I've started, I can't stop. It's addictive :-)
Monday, 28 September 2009
Multi-level application from Xero
Xero have announced that they're migrating from a "one-size-fits-all" software application to a multi-level application.
Put simply, smaller businesses can now pay a reduced fee (here in the UK that would be £12 per month instead of £19 per month), but any customers paying that reduced fee can only enter 5 sales invoices per month, 5 purchase invoices per month, and 20 bank transactions per month.
And businesses that need multi-currency would pay £24 a month.
Reading the comments, I think these prices apply to new users signing up after 11th October 2009. Existing users would continue to get multi-currency as part of their package.
I'm not sure what I think about that.
In principle I'm all for paying for only what you need. It wouldn't make sense to pay for stock control if you're running a service-based business, for example. But I'm not sure I like how Xero have chosen to draw the boundaries.
Certainly I'm not sure that capping the number of transactions for micro businesses is a very good idea. Some small businesses would fit comfortably, for example a small IT contractor who has only 1 or 2 customers and sells his/her own services so has very few purchase invoices. But others would not. My own company quite often has more than 5 sales invoices to issue a month. I'd be snookered for the smallest plan if I were on Xero.
And I'm also not convinced that multi-currency is such an optional extra any more. Ask me a few years ago and I'd have said yes. But plenty more businesses now have customers abroad who have to be invoiced in their own currency. Not all overseas businesses are happy to be invoiced in £ sterling. I've had to issue 2 invoices in US dollars before now. That means I'd also be snookered for the medium plan on Xero. I'd have to pay £24 a month instead of £12. That's an extra £144 a year. Which, for a small business, is not to be (atishoo)* sneezed at.
Personally, I prefer FreeAgent's pricing structure, whereby the monthly amount paid is determined by whether your business is a sole trader, partnership/LLP, or limited company. It's 99.9% certain that a limited company will need to be able to produce dividend vouchers, and a sole trader won't - so they're in for a company and out for a sole trader.
Disclosure: FreeAgent is a customer of mine.
* Yes, I really do say "atishoo" when I sneeze. Honest.
Put simply, smaller businesses can now pay a reduced fee (here in the UK that would be £12 per month instead of £19 per month), but any customers paying that reduced fee can only enter 5 sales invoices per month, 5 purchase invoices per month, and 20 bank transactions per month.
And businesses that need multi-currency would pay £24 a month.
Reading the comments, I think these prices apply to new users signing up after 11th October 2009. Existing users would continue to get multi-currency as part of their package.
I'm not sure what I think about that.
In principle I'm all for paying for only what you need. It wouldn't make sense to pay for stock control if you're running a service-based business, for example. But I'm not sure I like how Xero have chosen to draw the boundaries.
Certainly I'm not sure that capping the number of transactions for micro businesses is a very good idea. Some small businesses would fit comfortably, for example a small IT contractor who has only 1 or 2 customers and sells his/her own services so has very few purchase invoices. But others would not. My own company quite often has more than 5 sales invoices to issue a month. I'd be snookered for the smallest plan if I were on Xero.
And I'm also not convinced that multi-currency is such an optional extra any more. Ask me a few years ago and I'd have said yes. But plenty more businesses now have customers abroad who have to be invoiced in their own currency. Not all overseas businesses are happy to be invoiced in £ sterling. I've had to issue 2 invoices in US dollars before now. That means I'd also be snookered for the medium plan on Xero. I'd have to pay £24 a month instead of £12. That's an extra £144 a year. Which, for a small business, is not to be (atishoo)* sneezed at.
Personally, I prefer FreeAgent's pricing structure, whereby the monthly amount paid is determined by whether your business is a sole trader, partnership/LLP, or limited company. It's 99.9% certain that a limited company will need to be able to produce dividend vouchers, and a sole trader won't - so they're in for a company and out for a sole trader.
Disclosure: FreeAgent is a customer of mine.
* Yes, I really do say "atishoo" when I sneeze. Honest.
Monday, 21 September 2009
Staff earning tips - did you know...
From CCH's latest e-CPD update (summarised in my own words):
If you're working in a restaurant / bar / bistro, and tips are paid to you directly by the restaurant / bar / bistro's customers, you have to declare that income on a Self Assessment Tax Return every year and pay tax to HM Revenue.
But if your employer collects all the tips and shares them out between you and your colleagues, the employer has to operate PAYE on the tip money, so you don't have to worry about it.
And if someone other than your employer collects the tips and shares them out, that person may be a "troncmaster" who counts as an employer in his/her own right and so has to operate PAYE.
And the National Insurance gets even more complicated.
Crikey... and the bar staff are probably only trying to earn a few quid to help them get through university without a gi-normous student loan debt to pay off.
Why does it have to be so complicated?
Because declare any income tax-free and you run the risk of other income being falsely declared as that - and other complications. For example:
If tips were tax-free... then restaurateurs would pay their staff NMW (because they have to)... and anything else paid to staff would be classified as tips... and then the staff would have a job to get a mortgage because their P60 would show only a fraction of their income... and you're in a Gordian knot.
So in this case, perhaps it is easier to say that if staff collect their own tips, they must declare that as self-assessment income. But I hope that restaurateurs who let their staff do that, warn them that they have to do tax returns...
If you're working in a restaurant / bar / bistro, and tips are paid to you directly by the restaurant / bar / bistro's customers, you have to declare that income on a Self Assessment Tax Return every year and pay tax to HM Revenue.
But if your employer collects all the tips and shares them out between you and your colleagues, the employer has to operate PAYE on the tip money, so you don't have to worry about it.
And if someone other than your employer collects the tips and shares them out, that person may be a "troncmaster" who counts as an employer in his/her own right and so has to operate PAYE.
And the National Insurance gets even more complicated.
Crikey... and the bar staff are probably only trying to earn a few quid to help them get through university without a gi-normous student loan debt to pay off.
Why does it have to be so complicated?
Because declare any income tax-free and you run the risk of other income being falsely declared as that - and other complications. For example:
If tips were tax-free... then restaurateurs would pay their staff NMW (because they have to)... and anything else paid to staff would be classified as tips... and then the staff would have a job to get a mortgage because their P60 would show only a fraction of their income... and you're in a Gordian knot.
So in this case, perhaps it is easier to say that if staff collect their own tips, they must declare that as self-assessment income. But I hope that restaurateurs who let their staff do that, warn them that they have to do tax returns...
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
And here's why the tax system needs simplification
I was doing some research for a client into Inheritance Tax and happened upon the exemption for gifts in consideration of marriage or civil partnership.
HMRC's website explains how much parents, other relatives, and anyone else, can give a couple when they marry, without the gift being counted as part of the giver's estate for Inheritance Tax.
What made my eyes pop was that the gift has to be promised "on or shortly before the date of the ceremony" to qualify for the exemption.
It can be paid over before or after the ceremony, but it must be promised before the ceremony or the exemption won't apply.
That astonishes me. What if, for example, an aged grandparent suffering from Alzheimer's Disease remembers only when the newlyweds visit her after the honeymoon that she hasn't told them about the money she plans to give them? That gift would not qualify for exemption.
It's also such a pettifogging little rule. I can't honestly see what difference it makes if the gift is promised before or after the ceremony, in logical terms.
But then, who said tax was logical.
HMRC's website explains how much parents, other relatives, and anyone else, can give a couple when they marry, without the gift being counted as part of the giver's estate for Inheritance Tax.
What made my eyes pop was that the gift has to be promised "on or shortly before the date of the ceremony" to qualify for the exemption.
It can be paid over before or after the ceremony, but it must be promised before the ceremony or the exemption won't apply.
That astonishes me. What if, for example, an aged grandparent suffering from Alzheimer's Disease remembers only when the newlyweds visit her after the honeymoon that she hasn't told them about the money she plans to give them? That gift would not qualify for exemption.
It's also such a pettifogging little rule. I can't honestly see what difference it makes if the gift is promised before or after the ceremony, in logical terms.
But then, who said tax was logical.
Cut tax avoidance? Make the whole system simpler
Richard Murphy has published an extract from Unite's policy and a speech made by Derek Simpson, the joint leader of Unite, at this year's TUC.
In brief, Unite put the blame for the current recession squarely on the shoulders of the super-rich and big business who avoid paying their share of tax, then leave working- and middle-class families to pick up the pieces and bail out the banks.
They urge the government to close tax loopholes to prevent such large-scale tax avoidance, rather than cutting spending on public services.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. Cutting spending on public services would make unemployment worse in the short term because scores of public sector workers would find themselves out of work, and would damage the long-term economy, for the reason I've explained below.
At the moment we're seeing economic improvement, but that's only because money has been pumped into the economy. It's like an investor watching the share prices of a company rise and not realising that's only because he's bought a large block of shares.
For long-term economic recovery we need investment in public services, not cuts.
For example, it's education that can help people out of the poverty trap. Cut state education and you damage the chance of an intelligent child from a working-class background being able to achieve good exam grades, a place at university and a fulfilling and well-paid career. And that would damage the long-term economy, because that person, instead of having a well-paid job and paying more in tax as a consequence, could be forced to take a low-paid job and hence pay less tax.
Cutting public spending is not the answer.
Cutting tax avoidance is a much more satisfactory policy.
But I think that rather than a piecemeal closing of loopholes, it's time for the entire tax system to have a gigantic overhaul and be made much more simple.
As I meet with more micro-business clients of my practice, I come to realise even more that the tax system is cumbersome and so complicated that it's become impossible to run efficiently and easily.
Daily there are comments on Accounting Web about mistakes and inefficiency from HM Revenue. To that I say - HM Revenue is not the demon king. They are trying their best (at least the staff at the Cumbria Area, who are very friendly and helpful, are) to operate within a hugely overloaded, hugely complicated system.
We humans have made the world far too complicated for its own good.
To paraphrase a quote from the recent excellent BBC docu-drama about the collapse of Lehman Brothers - sometimes a return to an economy based on "goats and pebbles" seems very tempting.
Though I wouldn't recommend going that far :-)
In brief, Unite put the blame for the current recession squarely on the shoulders of the super-rich and big business who avoid paying their share of tax, then leave working- and middle-class families to pick up the pieces and bail out the banks.
They urge the government to close tax loopholes to prevent such large-scale tax avoidance, rather than cutting spending on public services.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. Cutting spending on public services would make unemployment worse in the short term because scores of public sector workers would find themselves out of work, and would damage the long-term economy, for the reason I've explained below.
At the moment we're seeing economic improvement, but that's only because money has been pumped into the economy. It's like an investor watching the share prices of a company rise and not realising that's only because he's bought a large block of shares.
For long-term economic recovery we need investment in public services, not cuts.
For example, it's education that can help people out of the poverty trap. Cut state education and you damage the chance of an intelligent child from a working-class background being able to achieve good exam grades, a place at university and a fulfilling and well-paid career. And that would damage the long-term economy, because that person, instead of having a well-paid job and paying more in tax as a consequence, could be forced to take a low-paid job and hence pay less tax.
Cutting public spending is not the answer.
Cutting tax avoidance is a much more satisfactory policy.
But I think that rather than a piecemeal closing of loopholes, it's time for the entire tax system to have a gigantic overhaul and be made much more simple.
As I meet with more micro-business clients of my practice, I come to realise even more that the tax system is cumbersome and so complicated that it's become impossible to run efficiently and easily.
Daily there are comments on Accounting Web about mistakes and inefficiency from HM Revenue. To that I say - HM Revenue is not the demon king. They are trying their best (at least the staff at the Cumbria Area, who are very friendly and helpful, are) to operate within a hugely overloaded, hugely complicated system.
We humans have made the world far too complicated for its own good.
To paraphrase a quote from the recent excellent BBC docu-drama about the collapse of Lehman Brothers - sometimes a return to an economy based on "goats and pebbles" seems very tempting.
Though I wouldn't recommend going that far :-)
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Fire an exam failer and lose staff loyalty
Hat tip to Dennis Howlett for this link to an article about an accountancy trainee who was fired from PwC for failing some of his ACA exams.
Most of the article focuses on the vitriolic e-mail he sent as he left, which has gone round the world.
Personally I'm less interested in that than in the fact that PwC fired someone who's obviously got a lot of spark and spunk, because he didn't pass his exams.
Whether those fails were at the first time of sitting or not isn't made clear in the article - but if they sacked him for not getting first-time passes then their policies are wildly askew. Because ACA exams are extremely tough.
I failed two of my ACA exams at first attempt (tax and audit). My then employers supported me through that time and helped and encouraged me to try again. On the second attempt I passed - and went on to qualify and, I like to think, to serve that firm loyally for 4 more years after I qualified.
Staff are not perfect beings. They are only human. I think it behoves an employer to help and support them, not trample all over them. It's by helping your staff when they need it that you receive loyal service.
Most of the article focuses on the vitriolic e-mail he sent as he left, which has gone round the world.
Personally I'm less interested in that than in the fact that PwC fired someone who's obviously got a lot of spark and spunk, because he didn't pass his exams.
Whether those fails were at the first time of sitting or not isn't made clear in the article - but if they sacked him for not getting first-time passes then their policies are wildly askew. Because ACA exams are extremely tough.
I failed two of my ACA exams at first attempt (tax and audit). My then employers supported me through that time and helped and encouraged me to try again. On the second attempt I passed - and went on to qualify and, I like to think, to serve that firm loyally for 4 more years after I qualified.
Staff are not perfect beings. They are only human. I think it behoves an employer to help and support them, not trample all over them. It's by helping your staff when they need it that you receive loyal service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)