Jump to content

Don't want to see ads? Become a subscribed member.

Rishi Sunaks Super Deduction Explained.


cleaniac

Recommended Posts

On 26/03/2021 at 17:01, cleaniac said:

Hi Everyone

Just thought that I would share this from my accountancy firm; its only really applicable to LTD companies, but it might help highlight the benefits & pitfalls of this scheme for you to make up your own mind. 

https://www.hamlyns.com/Blog/Forget-Marvel%2C-Rishi-has-created-the-next-big-super-hero%21

 

Ionics are promoting this 130% package announced in the budget in their booklet I received through the post yesterday - page 12.  

Link to comment

Personally, I think it's a waste of money a flashy tank and all that. Why get your business into more debt? 

All you need is a tank, and a decent ro and di system. 

If your going to spend serious dough, spend it on decent poles from Gardiner.

Just my opinion 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to comment

Possibly a good time, for those contemplating the switch, to go from sole trader to Ltd company. Sell everything at book value, or above, and get the tax allowance. 

I don't know if this is allowed so ask your Accountant first.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, cleaniac said:

Personally, I think it's a waste of money a flashy tank and all that. Why get your business into more debt? 

All you need is a tank, and a decent ro and di system. 

If your going to spend serious dough, spend it on decent poles from Gardiner.

Just my opinion 

 

Your getting a crash tested system. That alone is worth the premium. Not particularly pro Ionics, just any system from a company that’s crash tested is a good shout. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Part Timer said:

Possibly a good time, for those contemplating the switch, to go from sole trader to Ltd company. Sell everything at book value, or above, and get the tax allowance. 

I don't know if this is allowed so ask your Accountant first.

It's what I did. 

It is allowed, it's a fine balance on what you value the goodwill at, you don't really want to go perhaps as high as you would on the open market, but you need to make it realistic.

In my case it was taken as a nominal value of no more than £10k for the goodwill, plus equipment i think the total amount was something like 15k for a business that was taking 52k a year at the time this was 4 years ago now.. 

There was a small amount of personal tax to pay, but they did something through other allowances and deductions and it only cost me £200 extra in personal tax to sell the self employed goodwill and assets to my Ltd  company. 

But yes use a tax advisor. My accountants are also tax advisors.

 

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, NewGuy said:

Could be a good time for someone interested in buying a hot water system...

Lol unfortunately I already have 3 so cannot claim 😰😰😰😰

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, cleaniac said:

It's what I did. 

It is allowed, it's a fine balance on what you value the goodwill at, you don't really want to go perhaps as high as you would on the open market, but you need to make it realistic.

In my case it was taken as a nominal value of no more than £10k for the goodwill, plus equipment i think the total amount was something like 15k for a business that was taking 52k a year at the time this was 4 years ago now.. 

There was a small amount of personal tax to pay, but they did something through other allowances and deductions and it only cost me £200 extra in personal tax to sell the self employed goodwill and assets to my Ltd  company. 

But yes use a tax advisor. My accountants are also tax advisors.

 

 

I was just talking about assets, I doubt the goodwill would attract the higher tax allowance. It is legal to sell the goodwilll and, as you said, as long as you don't take the mickey you shouldn't have a problem.

Edited by Part Timer
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Master Jedi Alejandro said:

Your getting a crash tested system. That alone is worth the premium. Not particularly pro Ionics, just any system from a company that’s crash tested is a good shout. 

Not really.

The crash tested systems are nothing but marketing jargon. 

I can tell you now that the most important thing is to not exceed the payload data for your vehicle.

If your payload is within the vehicle limits, it makes no difference if you are  carrying water, concrete blocks, or mouldy socks.. payload is payload and in fact many insurance companies are starting to question bolted through tank systems as it makes it easier for the user exceed the payload that was designed for the vehicle.

If your tank is 500 kg over the payload, it won't make any difference if it's bolted down, with extra frames etc,  the weight will still exceed the weight of the vehicle in a crash and instead of breaking free, it will just peel away from the floor, or even take the floor with it as it comes through the  cabin in a crash. 

A strapped down tank within the payload with a full bulkhead is just as safe as a bolted down tank, as long as they are both within the payload limits 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, cleaniac said:

Not really.

The crash tested systems are nothing but marketing jargon. 

I can tell you now that the most important thing is to not exceed the payload data for your vehicle.

If your payload is within the vehicle limits, it makes no difference if you are  carrying water, concrete blocks, or mouldy socks.. payload is payload and in fact many insurance companies are starting to question bolted through tank systems as it makes it easier for the user exceed the payload that was designed for the vehicle.

If your tank is 500 kg over the payload, it won't make any difference if it's bolted down, with extra frames etc,  the weight will still exceed the weight of the vehicle in a crash and instead of breaking free, it will just peel away from the floor, or even take the floor with it as it comes through the  cabin in a crash. 

A strapped down tank within the payload with a full bulkhead is just as safe as a bolted down tank, as long as they are both within the payload limits 

I don’t know too much about it mate but this is wrong. 
 

First of all, I don’t agree nor have I installed a oversized tank on the premises ‘ohh it’s bolted it’s fine’. Stick within the payload to be sure! 
 

Second, water moves and has its own velocity. So it’s not like bricks or other solids. I don’t know too much about this but basically the weight behind you increases drastically with speed. Because of this, the ratchet straps you have installed may be drastically underrated than you realise. Plus they are reliant on the tie down points which aren’t rated for the weight which is required. @Part Timer @Pjj and a few others know a lot more about this than me. 
 

Like I said, I don’t know too much about this, but I did plenty of research, both on here and on my own, before purchasing my system. These tested systems, be it Ionics, Gardiner, come with crash test certificates and have been shown to be worth the money. 
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, cleaniac said:

Not really.

The crash tested systems are nothing but marketing jargon. 

I can tell you now that the most important thing is to not exceed the payload data for your vehicle.

If your payload is within the vehicle limits, it makes no difference if you are  carrying water, concrete blocks, or mouldy socks.. payload is payload and in fact many insurance companies are starting to question bolted through tank systems as it makes it easier for the user exceed the payload that was designed for the vehicle.

If your tank is 500 kg over the payload, it won't make any difference if it's bolted down, with extra frames etc,  the weight will still exceed the weight of the vehicle in a crash and instead of breaking free, it will just peel away from the floor, or even take the floor with it as it comes through the  cabin in a crash. 

A strapped down tank within the payload with a full bulkhead is just as safe as a bolted down tank, as long as they are both within the payload limits 

I very much doubt a tank strapped in on 1 tonne hooks is as safe as a tank bolted through the chassis with sufficient spreader plates. A bulkhead is thinner than the floor and wont stop anything substantial., let alone 650l's of water.

  • Agree 4
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Part Timer said:

I very much doubt a tank strapped in on 1 tonne hooks is as safe as a tank bolted through the chassis with sufficient spreader plates. A bulkhead is thinner than the floor and wont stop anything substantial., let alone 650l's of water.

The bulkhead in my current van had dented from when I had a tank strapped in against it (temporality for a month until I took it to get the proper system installed). Yeah, it isn’t stopping anything! 😂

E9252737-BC55-454F-BBA8-E9BDC8CA40BD.thumb.jpeg.a96d77fdc6b3fa18972dda5124af8a51.jpeg 
 

You can see the creases. Credit to the plyboard, the van floor looked brand new when I took it up and gave it a quick clean! 

Edited by Master Jedi Alejandro
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Master Jedi Alejandro said:

Second, water moves and has its own velocity.

It's called inertia and there is a formula that shows how it increases with speed. Far to technical for me to understand but @ched999uk will probably be able to explain it 😃

  • Haha 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Part Timer said:

I very much doubt a tank strapped in on 1 tonne hooks is as safe as a tank bolted through the chassis with sufficient spreader plates. A bulkhead is thinner than the floor and wont stop anything substantial., let alone 650l's of water.

You guys are entitled to your opinion. 

And I respect that.

I do not agree that it offers much more in protection. 

Like I said, don't exceed the payload and your fine. Keep the tank up against bulkhead, fixed down using the 8 lashing eyes that are rated for the vehicle.

I don't see the problem. But then again there is also no problem with spending money on a "crash tested" system if you want, I just don't think it offers much over what already on offer within the limits of the vehicle from factory. 

Just my opinion. It's not right or wrong..

Do what you want to do, spend what you want to spend. The truth of the matter is that manufacturers will make you believe something is more dangerous than it really is in order to rinse 30k out of you for a water tank, and it might be a little be safer perhaps, but I doubt it would make much of a difference in a crash. Below payload on both systems should be fine  mass is mass. 1000 kg of bricks is the same as 1000kg of feathers, water, sand, women's panties...It's all the same. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, cleaniac said:

Not really.

The crash tested systems are nothing but marketing jargon. 

I can tell you now that the most important thing is to not exceed the payload data for your vehicle.

If your payload is within the vehicle limits, it makes no difference if you are  carrying water, concrete blocks, or mouldy socks.. payload is payload and in fact many insurance companies are starting to question bolted through tank systems as it makes it easier for the user exceed the payload that was designed for the vehicle.

If your tank is 500 kg over the payload, it won't make any difference if it's bolted down, with extra frames etc,  the weight will still exceed the weight of the vehicle in a crash and instead of breaking free, it will just peel away from the floor, or even take the floor with it as it comes through the  cabin in a crash. 

A strapped down tank within the payload with a full bulkhead is just as safe as a bolted down tank, as long as they are both within the payload limits 

Sorry to disagree mark I used to drive HGV class one artics with unbaffled tanks and 28000 ltr of liquid milk , the surge when half loaded is huge , when driving a lorry loaded wjth the same weight and heavier with concrete blocks there is no surge , crash tested systems are invaluable in our job  and should always be used for the safety of the occupants of the vehicle , I believe your family have an engineering background ?? I would have thought you would be more switched on with all this . Payload is also important and vehicles should not be overloaded , but a static load is far more stable than a liquid load and a vehicle handles totally differently we have a water carrier on our firestation that only carries 6000 ltr of water to keep within the payload but it’s a 12000 ltr tank with polystyrene panels in the top to try and prevent water surge and it’s baffled but it still kicks like a mule . 

F9C9C826-9ECA-420D-A8D4-2397F7AD13D4.jpeg

DB58A7BF-FC4B-4781-92E6-311DB3DBBE03.jpeg

EE5BF580-B276-4BFC-9B1C-3AB3560C23C4.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, cleaniac said:

You guys are entitled to your opinion. 

And I respect that.

I do not agree that it offers much more in protection. 

Like I said, don't exceed the payload and your fine. Keep the tank up against bulkhead, fixed down using the 8 lashing eyes that are rated for the vehicle.

I don't see the problem. But then again there is also no problem with spending money on a "crash tested" system if you want, I just don't think it offers much over what already on offer within the limits of the vehicle from factory. 

Just my opinion. It's not right or wrong..

Do what you want to do, spend what you want to spend. The truth of the matter is that manufacturers will make you believe something is more dangerous than it really is in order to rinse 30k out of you for a water tank, and it might be a little be safer perhaps, but I doubt it would make much of a difference in a crash. Below payload on both systems should be fine  mass is mass. 1000 kg of bricks is the same as 1000kg of feathers, water, sand, women's panties...It's all the same. 

 

 

 

Tanks should not be up against a bulkhead there should be a gap to allow the tank to deform and rupture in the event of a crash that’s the whole point of crash tested systems , watch the ionics sled crash video , it shows how inertia with liquids works , solid objects are totally different .

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, cleaniac said:

You guys are entitled to your opinion. 

And I respect that.

I do not agree that it offers much more in protection. 

Like I said, don't exceed the payload and your fine. Keep the tank up against bulkhead, fixed down using the 8 lashing eyes that are rated for the vehicle.

I don't see the problem. But then again there is also no problem with spending money on a "crash tested" system if you want, I just don't think it offers much over what already on offer within the limits of the vehicle from factory. 

Just my opinion. It's not right or wrong..

Do what you want to do, spend what you want to spend. The truth of the matter is that manufacturers will make you believe something is more dangerous than it really is in order to rinse 30k out of you for a water tank, and it might be a little be safer perhaps, but I doubt it would make much of a difference in a crash. Below payload on both systems should be fine  mass is mass. 1000 kg of bricks is the same as 1000kg of feathers, water, sand, women's panties...It's all the same. 

 

 

 

But it’s not opinions mate, it’s physics and facts. 
 

Of course it’s up to you if you think it’s worth it and to spend the money, but especially if your a employer, you’ve got a duty of care to be safe. 
 

Also, I know your exaggerating but it’s no where near 30k. I paid just over 4K and that was including speedliner, a electric reel and a battery to battery charger (couldn’t use split relay due to age of van). Pure2O actually price match non crash tested systems. Small price to pay for the safety and security of a properly designed piece of kit!

Edited by Master Jedi Alejandro
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Pjj said:

Sorry to disagree mark I used to drive HGV class one artics with unbaffled tanks and 28000 ltr of liquid milk , the surge when half loaded is huge , when driving a lorry loaded wjth the same weight and heavier with concrete blocks there is no surge , crash tested systems are invaluable in our job  and should always be used for the safety of the occupants of the vehicle , I believe your family have an engineering background ?? I would have thought you would be more switched on with all this . Payload is also important and vehicles should not be overloaded , but a static load is far more stable than a liquid load and a vehicle handles totally differently we have a water carrier on our firestation that only carries 6000 ltr of water to keep within the payload but it’s a 12000 ltr tank with polystyrene panels in the top to try and prevent water surge and it’s baffled but it still kicks like a mule . 

F9C9C826-9ECA-420D-A8D4-2397F7AD13D4.jpeg

DB58A7BF-FC4B-4781-92E6-311DB3DBBE03.jpeg

EE5BF580-B276-4BFC-9B1C-3AB3560C23C4.jpeg

Ok yes.

Well here you are referring to baffles.

And baffles are not what I  am talking about.

A non baffled water tank bolted down, over the payload is just as dangerous as a non baffled water tank strapped down over the payload. 

My argument isn't about baffles.

My argument is that a bolted down tank won't make much of a difference in situations were the payload is exceeded over a strapped down tank with the same weight. 

I agree that a bolted down tank will be safer, to a degree. But the weak link isn't the tank fixings, or the way it's bolted down. It's the vehicle itself in a crash situation over it's payload specs that will still fail no matter how it's fixed inside.

And yes I am from an engineering family. 

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, cleaniac said:

You guys are entitled to your opinion. 

And I respect that.

I do not agree that it offers much more in protection. 

Like I said, don't exceed the payload and your fine. Keep the tank up against bulkhead, fixed down using the 8 lashing eyes that are rated for the vehicle.

I don't see the problem. But then again there is also no problem with spending money on a "crash tested" system if you want, I just don't think it offers much over what already on offer within the limits of the vehicle from factory. 

Just my opinion. It's not right or wrong..

Do what you want to do, spend what you want to spend. The truth of the matter is that manufacturers will make you believe something is more dangerous than it really is in order to rinse 30k out of you for a water tank, and it might be a little be safer perhaps, but I doubt it would make much of a difference in a crash. Below payload on both systems should be fine  mass is mass. 1000 kg of bricks is the same as 1000kg of feathers, water, sand, women's panties...It's all the same. 

 

 

 

Is your tank baffled? If it is why did you spend the extra money rather than just use an IBC? The reason you did was to prevent the sloshing in the tank and that sloshing is inertia and, god forbid, in a crash that will snap your lashing bolts like a matchstick. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment

Don't want to see ads? Become a subscribed member.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Ad Blocker Detected

Please disable your ad blocker

Our forum relies on ads to pay for the servers and our time maintaining and running the forum.

Sadly running a forum like this is not free, and due to our popularity, we need servers that can handle the amount of traffic and resources our forum uses.

 

If you do not wish to see ads on our site, please consider supporting the forum with a membership subscription.

 

Accept