6 ms·

> The Upper Tribunal — having already determined potato granules to be part of the extended potato universe — didn’t like this line of argument, judging that th

by cjs_ac 1y ago

> The Upper Tribunal — having already determined potato granules to be part of the extended potato universe — didn’t like this line of argument, judging that the potato starch and granules must be combined to judge overall potatitude. Okay, I'm sold. When I have the money, I'll get a subscription to the FT. On a less jocular note, this article is a good reminder that, contrary to most discussion here on HN, laws aren't algorithms that the powers that be execute against the world, but are rather heuristics that courts have to interpret in the context of specific cases.

varispeed 1y ago
FT occasionally publishes entertaining pieces, but make no mistake - their editorial line inherently favours the ultra wealthy and government perspectives. A classic example is their coverage of IR35, crafted to shield big consultancies from competition, not the taxpayer. They parrot government propaganda, as if their critical thinking faculties mysteriously switch off whenever they touch the topic. They favour policies and narratives that sustain the power of large players, often at the expense of small businesses, freelancers, or challengers. Don't feed the beast.
- argsnd 1y ago
  They cater to their readers https://commercial.ft.com/audience/ https://commercial.ft.com/audience/
- cjs_ac 1y ago
  As much as I agree with many of the biases of the Grauniad, I feel increasingly irritated by the blatant pandering to my sensibilities. The 'what happened' part of the article is so short on details it's barely there and the 'analysis' part is almost always just telling me who are the goodies and who are the baddies. If they quote experts, it's always an explanation of the most basic shit, because that's all the journalist understood. All of the non-elite media is like this: the analytics seem to have told them that ragebait is the only thing that gets ad revenue. I just want to know what's going on in the world, and interesting analysis. I don't want analysis that tells me that I'm a good person, I want analysis that tells me something interesting about the world, even if I don't agree with it. If I have to pay a Bond villain to get that, so be it.
  - varispeed 1y ago
    I get it - FT feels like the antidote to shallow ragebait because it's polished, detailed, and authoritative. But in my opinion, papers like the FT, exist less to inform you fully and more to shape your perception - a polished form of narrative management for the benefit of the said elites, not you. The elites themselves, though, aren't relying on newspaper analysis. They have access to internal briefings, specialised research, paid private reports, strategic intelligence, and direct advisor networks - insights and data that never make it into public media channels.
- jarym 1y ago
  So, so, true. Even more irksome when the country is faced with massive economic challenges and the politicians make choices that they seek to avoid justifying and do not appear to be in the national interest.
- erikerikson 1y ago
  Do you have a recommendation of where one should read?
- twic 1y ago
  > IR35, crafted to shield big consultancies from competition, not the taxpayer I think this is a crank belief, and my guess is that you are an aggrieved ex-contractor. But i would definitely be interested to hear more about this theory.
  - varispeed 1y ago
    IR35 only applies if the worker owns the business delivering the work. Big consultancies are completely exempt — even when their staff do the same job, in the same client seat, for years. The legislation funnels work away from independents toward large firms - it’s a structural outcome of how the rules are written, all under the false banner of tax fairness. At its core, IR35 was about consolidating control over skilled labour, locking clients into corporate pipelines, and eliminating independent operators who could undercut on price and offer better quality.
    - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
      I also hate IR35, mostly because it has always been so completely unclear on whether anyone is compliant with it. HMRCs own online assessment was shown to be utterly unreliable. My single biggest insurance expense was always for IR35. And you had the constant worry that one day you would be investigated, and have back taxes applied going back years, regardless of how compliant you thought you were. It's a huge horrible mess of a law. Big consultancies are exempt because all their staff are paid at market rates and taxed as normal employees. Let's be honest - most contractors were paying a much lower rate of tax than anyone else holding a similar position. I believe this gap has now narrowed considerably though - been out of contracting for a few years now.
      - varispeed 1y ago
        You're right that IR35 has always been a mess - but that last point seriously misses the mark. Big consultancies aren't exempt because they "pay market rates" - they're exempt because the worker doesn't own the delivery company, so the client carries no IR35 risk. Meanwhile, the consultancy bills the client often 2-3x the day rate and books the margin as corporate profit - profit that’s often structured to minimise UK tax exposure (through internal charges, offshore entities, etc.). It's tempting - and convenient - to reduce a small, one-person business to "just an employee in disguise," but that's classism in its purest form. Contractors didn't have tax advantages over big consultancies or employees - in fact, they often paid much more. They had none of the multinational tax structuring, none of the offshore routing, none of the internal "cost shifting" that lets large firms declare minimal UK profit and no top accountants on tap. Employees typically see a small fraction of what the consultancy actually bills for their work. So the idea that big consultancies "do it right" while small independents were somehow gaming the system is a myth - one that government and corporate lobbyists have carefully exploited to shut down independent economic actors and funnel the contracts back to large firms.
- zipy124 1y ago
  This is frankly not true. They have news but also opinion pieces and it is important to separate the two. It is also important to look at the specific journalist/guest who wrote it which they make sure to feature prominently at the top along with any disclosures of shares/positions. They for example often publish articles encouraging lower taxes, but also those advocating for wealth taxes, land value taxes, estate taxes, non-dom/exit fees which are often the ones which specifically target the ultra rich. The important thing to note is that on any financial trade, a party is on each side, and both will be reading the FT so they have a vested interest in trying to present both sides to capture this audience. There are heavy-weight bond investors for example, who believe government debt is too high, and we need to tax the ultra-wealthy in order to reduce deficits.
intuitionist 1y ago
The FT is well worth reading (regardless of anyone’s personal beliefs, it’s useful to get a sense of how the wealthy and powerful think by reading their papers) but note that the FT Alphaville blog, which published this piece, is free to read if you create an account (you don’t need to pay).
- zipy124 1y ago
  This is not necessarily a paper read by the rich and powerful, but just by those in the finance industry/politics/academia/c-suites/board-members. It combines two key markets, objective no-nonense news pieces heavy with data and a light analysis (it's very good at separating the data from analysis/opinion) and also opinion pieces from high-influence people such as the top members of various governments, central banks and think tanks. You can read an opinion pieces from the heritage foundation, next to one written by the founders of just stop oil or other.
  - intuitionist 1y ago
    > This is not necessarily a paper read by the rich and powerful, but just by those in the finance industry/politics/academia/c-suites/board-members. I’m not sure who you think wealthy and powerful people are, if not those

by cjs_ac 1y ago

varispeed 1y ago

FT occasionally publishes entertaining pieces, but make no mistake - their editorial line inherently favours the ultra wealthy and government perspectives. A classic example is their coverage of IR35, crafted to shield big consultancies from competition, not the taxpayer. They parrot government propaganda, as if their critical thinking faculties mysteriously switch off whenever they touch the topic. They favour policies and narratives that sustain the power of large players, often at the expense of small businesses, freelancers, or challengers. Don't feed the beast.

argsnd 1y ago
They cater to their readers https://commercial.ft.com/audience/ https://commercial.ft.com/audience/
cjs_ac 1y ago
As much as I agree with many of the biases of the Grauniad, I feel increasingly irritated by the blatant pandering to my sensibilities. The 'what happened' part of the article is so short on details it's barely there and the 'analysis' part is almost always just telling me who are the goodies and who are the baddies. If they quote experts, it's always an explanation of the most basic shit, because that's all the journalist understood. All of the non-elite media is like this: the analytics seem to have told them that ragebait is the only thing that gets ad revenue. I just want to know what's going on in the world, and interesting analysis. I don't want analysis that tells me that I'm a good person, I want analysis that tells me something interesting about the world, even if I don't agree with it. If I have to pay a Bond villain to get that, so be it.
- varispeed 1y ago
  I get it - FT feels like the antidote to shallow ragebait because it's polished, detailed, and authoritative. But in my opinion, papers like the FT, exist less to inform you fully and more to shape your perception - a polished form of narrative management for the benefit of the said elites, not you. The elites themselves, though, aren't relying on newspaper analysis. They have access to internal briefings, specialised research, paid private reports, strategic intelligence, and direct advisor networks - insights and data that never make it into public media channels.
jarym 1y ago
So, so, true. Even more irksome when the country is faced with massive economic challenges and the politicians make choices that they seek to avoid justifying and do not appear to be in the national interest.
erikerikson 1y ago
Do you have a recommendation of where one should read?
twic 1y ago
> IR35, crafted to shield big consultancies from competition, not the taxpayer I think this is a crank belief, and my guess is that you are an aggrieved ex-contractor. But i would definitely be interested to hear more about this theory.
- varispeed 1y ago
  IR35 only applies if the worker owns the business delivering the work. Big consultancies are completely exempt — even when their staff do the same job, in the same client seat, for years. The legislation funnels work away from independents toward large firms - it’s a structural outcome of how the rules are written, all under the false banner of tax fairness. At its core, IR35 was about consolidating control over skilled labour, locking clients into corporate pipelines, and eliminating independent operators who could undercut on price and offer better quality.
  - MattPalmer1086 1y ago
    I also hate IR35, mostly because it has always been so completely unclear on whether anyone is compliant with it. HMRCs own online assessment was shown to be utterly unreliable. My single biggest insurance expense was always for IR35. And you had the constant worry that one day you would be investigated, and have back taxes applied going back years, regardless of how compliant you thought you were. It's a huge horrible mess of a law. Big consultancies are exempt because all their staff are paid at market rates and taxed as normal employees. Let's be honest - most contractors were paying a much lower rate of tax than anyone else holding a similar position. I believe this gap has now narrowed considerably though - been out of contracting for a few years now.
    - varispeed 1y ago
      You're right that IR35 has always been a mess - but that last point seriously misses the mark. Big consultancies aren't exempt because they "pay market rates" - they're exempt because the worker doesn't own the delivery company, so the client carries no IR35 risk. Meanwhile, the consultancy bills the client often 2-3x the day rate and books the margin as corporate profit - profit that’s often structured to minimise UK tax exposure (through internal charges, offshore entities, etc.). It's tempting - and convenient - to reduce a small, one-person business to "just an employee in disguise," but that's classism in its purest form. Contractors didn't have tax advantages over big consultancies or employees - in fact, they often paid much more. They had none of the multinational tax structuring, none of the offshore routing, none of the internal "cost shifting" that lets large firms declare minimal UK profit and no top accountants on tap. Employees typically see a small fraction of what the consultancy actually bills for their work. So the idea that big consultancies "do it right" while small independents were somehow gaming the system is a myth - one that government and corporate lobbyists have carefully exploited to shut down independent economic actors and funnel the contracts back to large firms.
zipy124 1y ago
This is frankly not true. They have news but also opinion pieces and it is important to separate the two. It is also important to look at the specific journalist/guest who wrote it which they make sure to feature prominently at the top along with any disclosures of shares/positions. They for example often publish articles encouraging lower taxes, but also those advocating for wealth taxes, land value taxes, estate taxes, non-dom/exit fees which are often the ones which specifically target the ultra rich. The important thing to note is that on any financial trade, a party is on each side, and both will be reading the FT so they have a vested interest in trying to present both sides to capture this audience. There are heavy-weight bond investors for example, who believe government debt is too high, and we need to tax the ultra-wealthy in order to reduce deficits.

intuitionist 1y ago

The FT is well worth reading (regardless of anyone’s personal beliefs, it’s useful to get a sense of how the wealthy and powerful think by reading their papers) but note that the FT Alphaville blog, which published this piece, is free to read if you create an account (you don’t need to pay).

zipy124 1y ago
This is not necessarily a paper read by the rich and powerful, but just by those in the finance industry/politics/academia/c-suites/board-members. It combines two key markets, objective no-nonense news pieces heavy with data and a light analysis (it's very good at separating the data from analysis/opinion) and also opinion pieces from high-influence people such as the top members of various governments, central banks and think tanks. You can read an opinion pieces from the heritage foundation, next to one written by the founders of just stop oil or other.
- intuitionist 1y ago
  > This is not necessarily a paper read by the rich and powerful, but just by those in the finance industry/politics/academia/c-suites/board-members. I’m not sure who you think wealthy and powerful people are, if not those