I agree with Uriel.....Caspian needs to be called to the boss's office right away for a good, firm dressing down. Not quite a case of his (her?) P45 though - not yet anyway.
ridiculous, not ''rediculous''
UK:
P45
You get a P45 from your employer when you stop working for them. It's a record of your pay and the tax that's been deducted from it so far in the tax year. It shows:
your tax code and PAYE (Pay As You Earn) reference number
your National Insurance number
your leaving date
your earnings in the tax year
how much tax was deducted from your earnings
The P45 should then be handed in to your next employer.
P45
You get a P45 from your employer when you stop working for them. It's a record of your pay and the tax that's been deducted from it so far in the tax year. It shows:
your tax code and PAYE (Pay As You Earn) reference number
your National Insurance number
your leaving date
your earnings in the tax year
how much tax was deducted from your earnings
The P45 should then be handed in to your next employer.
In the US, you get all your tax and wage statements at the same time of the year -- end of January/beginning of February (i.e. right about now) -- regardless of your dates of employment during the year. So if you quit in July, you'll still wait to see your W-2. You can begin filing your taxes anytime after you receive it (or them, if you've had more than one job that year), but the deadline is still months away, on April 15th. If the IRS owes you, you'd be smart to collect now, but if you owe them, you should drag it out until the last minute.
If you're self-employed, you have to pay whatever you estimate your taxes will be every quarter, which is a bitch!
If you're self-employed, you have to pay whatever you estimate your taxes will be every quarter, which is a bitch!
It wasn't intended as a joke. I'm male, by the way. And no company that I would ever work for would sack me, or dress me down, for expressing opinions against the government - that would be Communism, and I don't think we're quite there yet.
And being British myself, I'm well aware of what a P45 form is.
And being British myself, I'm well aware of what a P45 form is.
***Perhaps in America. It just shows how the governments and society cater for the pig ignorant, doesn't it***
It was the somewhat negative reference to "America" in this context which "upset" us, Mr Caspian...my fellow countryman. I wonder why you link yourself to a massive semi Russian body of water though?
All governments have faults and our current British one is riddled with them.....sometimes I doubt whether they would be capable of running a whelk stall....and yes...I too share your British constitutional right to slag off our democratically elected Government and politicians anywhere I choose and to whom I choose. We in have resolutely reserved that right ever since the demise of Oliver Cromwell in 1659..well, 1707 officially for us in Scotland, but who's counting....
Speakers' Corner at Marble Arch is testimony to that. I could stand on the top of my soapbox there and with the use of the biggest megaphone I could lay my hands call our dear old Queen the most heinously insulting names under the sun and refer to Brown and his henchmen a bunch of dissolute tosspots fit only for the knacker's yard and be happy in the knowledge that I would never be carted off to the chopping block on Tower Hill* or slung into the dungeons of New Scotland Yard. I am free to do those things so long as I do not deliberately slander any one individual in ways that could be seen as maliciously mendacious and then challenged in a court of law.
I fervently hope you never get issued with a P45...not until you finally hang up your tools of the trade and claim your retirement pension(s) anyway...if there's anything left in the pot after Gordon's doings, that is. ;-)
I'm guessing that Uriel's mysterious W-2 is the equivalent of our P60?
*Figuratively speaking of course.....the death penalty in the UK was abolished in the early 1960s. We would be kickarsed out of the EU if we even thought of re-introducing it, most unlikely as that is, although there are times when it's easy to think it would be a good idea.
It was the somewhat negative reference to "America" in this context which "upset" us, Mr Caspian...my fellow countryman. I wonder why you link yourself to a massive semi Russian body of water though?
All governments have faults and our current British one is riddled with them.....sometimes I doubt whether they would be capable of running a whelk stall....and yes...I too share your British constitutional right to slag off our democratically elected Government and politicians anywhere I choose and to whom I choose. We in have resolutely reserved that right ever since the demise of Oliver Cromwell in 1659..well, 1707 officially for us in Scotland, but who's counting....
Speakers' Corner at Marble Arch is testimony to that. I could stand on the top of my soapbox there and with the use of the biggest megaphone I could lay my hands call our dear old Queen the most heinously insulting names under the sun and refer to Brown and his henchmen a bunch of dissolute tosspots fit only for the knacker's yard and be happy in the knowledge that I would never be carted off to the chopping block on Tower Hill* or slung into the dungeons of New Scotland Yard. I am free to do those things so long as I do not deliberately slander any one individual in ways that could be seen as maliciously mendacious and then challenged in a court of law.
I fervently hope you never get issued with a P45...not until you finally hang up your tools of the trade and claim your retirement pension(s) anyway...if there's anything left in the pot after Gordon's doings, that is. ;-)
I'm guessing that Uriel's mysterious W-2 is the equivalent of our P60?
*Figuratively speaking of course.....the death penalty in the UK was abolished in the early 1960s. We would be kickarsed out of the EU if we even thought of re-introducing it, most unlikely as that is, although there are times when it's easy to think it would be a good idea.
***and with the use of the biggest megaphone I could lay my hands....on***
I'm always embarrassed when I see an American or Englishman writing down things like "I would of done it that way". Seriously, how is it possible to make such a mistake if you're a native speaker? Oftenly I see mistakes which are kicked out in the first few English exercises we have in secondary school.
Of course I can't write English perfectly as well but I'm not a native speaker.
And well it is true, some words in English are difficult because there doesn't seem to be any phonetical reference in some words. You just have to smash those words in your head, nothing more nothing less. I try to write the words like 'tyre' and 'colour' the British way, don't know why but I prefer them above 'tire' and 'color'. Especially 'tire' looks stupid to my opinion. If I see 'tire' I always get some tired old man in my head.
Several words Damian gave are just well stupid if you miswrite them..
Tommorrow.. Damn ->Lets's make it syllables.
Tom-mor-row -> THAT'S NOT RIGHT!! What dickhead says Tom??
To-mor-row
I think it's already bad enough in English there's no difference between You plural and you singular. It's also difficult for me there's no 'special form'. Like in German 'Sie', French 'vous', Dutch 'u'.
You are eating. -> Well, is he speaking to one person or to a whole group? And if he's speaking to one person, is it to a 'higher' placed person? All these differences have already disappeared in English.
I don't know if the same thing is happening in Britain and the USA, but I have the feeling the current youth in the Netherlands is getting worse and worse at spelling and grammar of their native language which is sad.
Like English has with:
To walk
I walk <- stem
He/she/it = stem+s. He walks
In Dutch it's always stem+t with Jij (You singular) and hij/zij/het (he/she/it)
worden - to become
Ik word <-stem
Jij wordt
Hij wordt
Many children write;
Ik word
jij word (or even worse - jij wort)
hij word
Many children don't know this very simple rule or they just don't want to use this rule. Are these kind of problems happening in Britain and USA as well? Or the same 'downfall'?
Of course I can't write English perfectly as well but I'm not a native speaker.
And well it is true, some words in English are difficult because there doesn't seem to be any phonetical reference in some words. You just have to smash those words in your head, nothing more nothing less. I try to write the words like 'tyre' and 'colour' the British way, don't know why but I prefer them above 'tire' and 'color'. Especially 'tire' looks stupid to my opinion. If I see 'tire' I always get some tired old man in my head.
Several words Damian gave are just well stupid if you miswrite them..
Tommorrow.. Damn ->Lets's make it syllables.
Tom-mor-row -> THAT'S NOT RIGHT!! What dickhead says Tom??
To-mor-row
I think it's already bad enough in English there's no difference between You plural and you singular. It's also difficult for me there's no 'special form'. Like in German 'Sie', French 'vous', Dutch 'u'.
You are eating. -> Well, is he speaking to one person or to a whole group? And if he's speaking to one person, is it to a 'higher' placed person? All these differences have already disappeared in English.
I don't know if the same thing is happening in Britain and the USA, but I have the feeling the current youth in the Netherlands is getting worse and worse at spelling and grammar of their native language which is sad.
Like English has with:
To walk
I walk <- stem
He/she/it = stem+s. He walks
In Dutch it's always stem+t with Jij (You singular) and hij/zij/het (he/she/it)
worden - to become
Ik word <-stem
Jij wordt
Hij wordt
Many children write;
Ik word
jij word (or even worse - jij wort)
hij word
Many children don't know this very simple rule or they just don't want to use this rule. Are these kind of problems happening in Britain and USA as well? Or the same 'downfall'?
"I'm always embarrassed when I see an American or Englishman writing down things like 'I would of done it that way'. Seriously, how is it possible to make such a mistake if you're a native speaker?"
A native speaker is generally much more likely to make the sort of spelling mistake represented by "of" in "would of". Someone learning English as their second language will usually pay much more attention to their spelling.
A native speaker is generally much more likely to make the sort of spelling mistake represented by "of" in "would of". Someone learning English as their second language will usually pay much more attention to their spelling.
the would of/ should of thing is right up there for me as the your/you're confusion. Nothing annoys me more than when people confuse the two. I mean, for example: Your my friend. Can people not look at that sentence and realise it doesnt make any sense? I find people switch your for you're more often than you're for your.
<< It was the somewhat negative reference to "America" in this context which "upset" us, Mr Caspian...my fellow countryman. >>
Ah, simply a misunderstanding. I didn't mean it in that way at all - you see, I'm assuming that the poster is American, as Brits seem to be so thin on the ground here, and there are many Americans.
<< I wonder why you link yourself to a massive semi Russian body of water though? >>
Well Damian, it's my name - I didn't choose it myself, you know - you'd have to ask my mother about that one!
Yes, I think all Brits - well, at least any with common sense - share our views about our government!
<< We would be kickarsed out of the EU if we even thought of re-introducing it, most unlikely as that is, although there are times when it's easy to think it would be a good idea. >>
Yes, that would be good for foreign relations! lol.
Ah, simply a misunderstanding. I didn't mean it in that way at all - you see, I'm assuming that the poster is American, as Brits seem to be so thin on the ground here, and there are many Americans.
<< I wonder why you link yourself to a massive semi Russian body of water though? >>
Well Damian, it's my name - I didn't choose it myself, you know - you'd have to ask my mother about that one!
Yes, I think all Brits - well, at least any with common sense - share our views about our government!
<< We would be kickarsed out of the EU if we even thought of re-introducing it, most unlikely as that is, although there are times when it's easy to think it would be a good idea. >>
Yes, that would be good for foreign relations! lol.
<<<the would of/ should of thing is right up there for me as the your/you're confusion. Nothing annoys me more than when people confuse the two. I mean, for example: Your my friend. Can people not look at that sentence and realise it doesnt make any sense? I find people switch your for you're more often than you're for your. >>>
Actually, there is no "confusion". Most (except maybe 12 yr old kids) native speakers are perfectly aware of the difference between "you're" and "your" and would never make that mistake in proper writing. The only place you see this mistake is in computer writing, it's called a typo. When you're typing fast it's easy to write the wrong variant, and it sneaks through automatic spell checkers. The 'would of' thing is a little more of a problem, but still most people will be able to avoid it in serious writing.
Actually, there is no "confusion". Most (except maybe 12 yr old kids) native speakers are perfectly aware of the difference between "you're" and "your" and would never make that mistake in proper writing. The only place you see this mistake is in computer writing, it's called a typo. When you're typing fast it's easy to write the wrong variant, and it sneaks through automatic spell checkers. The 'would of' thing is a little more of a problem, but still most people will be able to avoid it in serious writing.
"Would of" and "would have" are generally pronounced the same way, which leads to the confusion in spelling.
<<I think it's already bad enough in English there's no difference between You plural and you singular. It's also difficult for me there's no 'special form'. Like in German 'Sie', French 'vous', Dutch 'u'.
You are eating. -> Well, is he speaking to one person or to a whole group? And if he's speaking to one person, is it to a 'higher' placed person? All these differences have already disappeared in English. >>
We really have no concept of implying status through grammatical form. It would not occur to us that you would need to. So it's often a headache for us when learning other languages to remember to distinguish between the formal and familiar "you" and to change verb endings and such. We would normally express this only by using polite terms like "sir" or "ma'am". We don't miss what we don't have, I suppose.
However, you DO see a vestige of this concept in old-fashioned, highly-stilted exchanges in which you indicate your subservience by addressing your betters in the third person, as if you are not worthy to speak to them directly -- "Would sir care to take his brandy in the sitting room?" In Spanish, the formal usted form takes on the same verb conjugations as the third person, so I assume this is a related phenomenon. But no one really uses it any more!
The "you" as both singular and plural DOES cause some ambiguity that occasionally requires us to feel like we should clarify exactly who we are including in it -- "And by 'you' I mean your whole department" -- and we do get self-conscious when we realize our meaning might be open to interpretation. That's probably why specific plural variants like "ya'll" and "youse" have developed in certain dialects.
<<I think it's already bad enough in English there's no difference between You plural and you singular. It's also difficult for me there's no 'special form'. Like in German 'Sie', French 'vous', Dutch 'u'.
You are eating. -> Well, is he speaking to one person or to a whole group? And if he's speaking to one person, is it to a 'higher' placed person? All these differences have already disappeared in English. >>
We really have no concept of implying status through grammatical form. It would not occur to us that you would need to. So it's often a headache for us when learning other languages to remember to distinguish between the formal and familiar "you" and to change verb endings and such. We would normally express this only by using polite terms like "sir" or "ma'am". We don't miss what we don't have, I suppose.
However, you DO see a vestige of this concept in old-fashioned, highly-stilted exchanges in which you indicate your subservience by addressing your betters in the third person, as if you are not worthy to speak to them directly -- "Would sir care to take his brandy in the sitting room?" In Spanish, the formal usted form takes on the same verb conjugations as the third person, so I assume this is a related phenomenon. But no one really uses it any more!
The "you" as both singular and plural DOES cause some ambiguity that occasionally requires us to feel like we should clarify exactly who we are including in it -- "And by 'you' I mean your whole department" -- and we do get self-conscious when we realize our meaning might be open to interpretation. That's probably why specific plural variants like "ya'll" and "youse" have developed in certain dialects.
<< Most (except maybe 12 yr old kids) native speakers are perfectly aware of the difference between "you're" and "your" and would never make that mistake in proper writing. >>
Hmm, that's certainly not true here, I'd say the majority of adults are complely unaware of the correct form to use.
Hmm, that's certainly not true here, I'd say the majority of adults are complely unaware of the correct form to use.