Wilsons of Kinver - merged topic

[magpie patrick]

It would be interesting to know what the directors' pay and benefits were in say the last year.

 

As a general rule directors get paid largely in dividends not in salary, and a dividend can only be declared on profits by law(although you can pay on an anticipated profit, if for example you have a full order book and cash in looks assured)

 

 

It was another canal shady practice that led to this law, the Gloucester and Sharpness company paid a dividend during construction, to attract investors, but it spent all the share capital on dividends and the government had to bail it out. sound familiar?

 

If my company didn't have enough money to pay my basic salary I go without. as at the first board meeting (where I sat in the lounge and had a conversation with the coffee table, as I'm sole director) a resolution was passed allowing me to open a bank account for the company but specifically not giving me the power to authorise bank debt, so no company credit card.

[cotswoldsman]

As a general rule directors get paid largely in dividends not in salary, and a dividend can only be declared on profits by law(although you can pay on an anticipated profit, if for example you have a full order book and cash in looks assured)

 

 

 

 

I was going to step aside on this thread but just feel I need to make a comment here Patrick.

I do not think that is correct. Firstly a director does not need to be a shareholder so would not be entitled to a dividend.

If you are only paying yourself via the dividend route and not paying National Insurance etc. then this will effect your state pension when you hit retirement age in your case the way things are going when you are about 80 yo.

In a small company like yours dividend are used as a way of Tax Avoidance so you can pay yourself a salary of up to £4,895 and pay no tax on that and then a dividend up to £32,400 and only pay 10% tax on that amount. But do not forget that you have to pay corporation tax 40% on the companies profit before you can take a dividend so in effect you would be paying 50% tax in the case of a sole trader. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong about this as I have not checked the latest laws and tax liabilities concerning dividends. (Do not have the energy to look at the tax website!!)

[magpie patrick]

I was going to step aside on this thread but just feel I need to make a comment here Patrick.

I do not think that is correct. Firstly a director does not need to be a shareholder so would not be entitled to a dividend.

If you are only paying yourself via the dividend route and not paying National Insurance etc. then this will effect your state pension when you hit retirement age in your case the way things are going when you are about 80 yo.

In a small company like yours dividend are used as a way of Tax Avoidance so you can pay yourself a salary of up to £4,895 and pay no tax on that and then a dividend up to £32,400 and only pay 10% tax on that amount. But do not forget that you have to pay corporation tax 40% on the companies profit before you can take a dividend so in effect you would be paying 50% tax in the case of a sole trader. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong about this as I have not checked the latest laws and tax liabilities concerning dividends. (Do not have the energy to look at the tax website!!)

 

That's approximately right, and I will admit to assuming the directors at Wilsons were also the shareholders

 

Profits attract 22% corporation tax while the dividend attracts 12% tax payable by the recipient, it works out that I'm around £1,000 a year better off if I earn enough to pay my former salary (I was a 40% tax payer when in full employment) but my main motive is that professional indemnity insurance in my line of work is a lot cheaper for a limited company than a sole trader

 

I've always been in company pension schemes so at the age of 45 I've built up zilch by way of state pension contributions anyway as they were all SERPS exempt. I'm working on extending these pensions in the new arrangement, but have had to accept for the moment that survival now is more important than pension later. Things will get a lot easier when we have moved to Frome from Bath

[cotswoldsman]

That's approximately right, and I will admit to assuming the directors at Wilsons were also the shareholders

 

Profits attract 22% corporation tax while the dividend attracts 12% tax payable by the recipient, it works out that I'm around £1,000 a year better off if I earn enough to pay my former salary (I was a 40% tax payer when in full employment) but my main motive is that professional indemnity insurance in my line of work is a lot cheaper for a limited company than a sole trader

 

I've always been in company pension schemes so at the age of 45 I've built up zilch by way of state pension contributions anyway as they were all SERPS exempt. I'm working on extending these pensions in the new arrangement, but have had to accept for the moment that survival now is more important than pension later. Things will get a lot easier when we have moved to Frome from Bath

 

Fair enough as I said I was not sure of current figures.

[Robin2]

You're not an accountant and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

The purpose of a company is to make money. The purpose of accounts is to tell the owners how much money they are making, NOT what the company would be worth if liquidated. Try to get your head around that simple fact.

 

The owners employ accountants to prepare accounts and appoint and pay auditors to check them. Whether you, as an outsider, like the way accounts are produced is utterly irrelevant. It's nothing to do with you, unless you are an owner. And accountants don't make up numbers. Assets in a balance sheet are stated at cost less depreciation, or net realisable value (as a going concern) if lower.

 

This illustrates your total lack of understanding. Life is much more complicated than your shallow and facile assertions suggest. You are not producing accounts for creditors, you are producing them to tell owners how much money they are making, and if a welding machine has a life of five years it is appropriate to charge 20% of the costs to the P&L every year.

 

The present sophisticated methods of accounting have developed over many years because more intelligent people than you have found that simple cash accounting doesn't work for anything more than a whelk stall.

 

And by the way, people don't start companies in order to put them into liquidation.

 

 

I am an accountant and you clearly have no understanding of the subject.

 

Sebrof's post explains why eloquently enough - I've got nothing more to add.

 

Life's too short.

 

 

Please try to understand the difference between understanding accounting and agreeing with it.

 

I understand perfectly well all that you are saying. I just don't believe it is a proper way to do things - the recent international banking fiasco demonstrated that very well.

 

And, as far as I know, most Government accounting is done on a cash basis. When I was an insider I didn't like it but now I see that it is safe and sensible.

[tom&chez]

one of the canopy fitters has set himself up he fitted a pram cover to the boat next to us the blue goose brill job was impressed

[sebrof]

Please try to understand the difference between understanding accounting and agreeing with it.

 

I understand perfectly well all that you are saying. I just don't believe it is a proper way to do things - the recent international banking fiasco demonstrated that very well.

 

And, as far as I know, most Government accounting is done on a cash basis. When I was an insider I didn't like it but now I see that it is safe and sensible.

 

You don't understand a damn thing, Robin, and I am not going to waste any more time trying to educate you.

 

Government accounting USED to be done on a cash basis, but a few years ago they started doing it properly.

 

The only reason you think a cash basis is better is because your brain can't grasp anything more complicated.

[Ange]

You don't understand a damn thing, Robin, and I am not going to waste any more time trying to educate you.

 

Government accounting USED to be done on a cash basis, but a few years ago they started doing it properly.

 

The only reason you think a cash basis is better is because your brain can't grasp anything more complicated.

 

Have a greenie.

 

Like I said, life's too short to try to explain to someone who patently doesn't want to listen.

[Robin2]

Have a greenie.

 

Like I said, life's too short to try to explain to someone who patently doesn't want to listen.

 

I agree.

[WotEver]

... have had to accept for the moment that survival now is more important than pension later.

I'm with you 100% on that.

 

Sadly.

 

Tony

[Ally]

I can't personally verify this at all, but have heard today on the grapevine, of someone who tried for a cratch cover from Wilsons in the last couple of weeks, and have been told they have gone again........................

[grahamjnewman]

I can't personally verify this at all, but have heard today on the grapevine, of someone who tried for a cratch cover from Wilsons in the last couple of weeks, and have been told they have gone again........................

[frangar]

I have no connection/interest in this thread other than to say Wilsons trailer unit was showing at the working boat rally at Braunston over the weekend.....didnt look too busy tho!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Nightwatch]

I have no connection/interest in this thread other than to say Wilsons trailer unit was showing at the working boat rally at Braunston over the weekend.....didnt look too busy tho!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

Yep, I saw it as well. In all it's glory. Was tempted to ask the chap at it why is he there if the company has gone ti+s up?

 

Wife thought it not a good idea. So I didn't.

 

Martyn

[DanBR]

I had a cover made by "Wilsons" 2/3 months ago and was told that I would get the cover VAT free because they were restructuring and the new company was under the VAT threshold, the company was just coming out of a "shut down" period. My cover does not have the Wilsons logo on it so I'm assuming it's not made by the old company.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Yep, I saw it as well. In all it's glory. Was tempted to ask the chap at it why is he there if the company has gone ti+s up?

 

Wife thought it not a good idea. So I didn't.

 

Martyn

 

Try webcheck at Companies House to find the position of Wilsons of Kinver Ltd. It says they went into voluntary liquidation in early May. If you spend a pound or two you may be able to discover if it had any associate companies which may still be trading and

further details of the insolvency.

[alan_fincher]

Try webcheck at Companies House to find the position of Wilsons of Kinver Ltd. It says they went into voluntary liquidation in early May. If you spend a pound or two you may be able to discover if it had any associate companies which may still be trading and

further details of the insolvency.

Isn't that what John (Cotswoldman) has already done ?

 

I can't personally verify this at all, but have heard today on the grapevine, of someone who tried for a cratch cover from Wilsons in the last couple of weeks, and have been told they have gone again........................

Ally,

 

Whilst I'm not happy with what seems to have happened with Wilsons, is it not yourself who has previously warned us about publishing speculation rather than fact, because it can sometimes damage companies unnecessarily ?

 

Unless you know Wilsons have folded again, should you really be saying anything ?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Isn't that what John (Cotswoldman) has already done ?

 

 

Ally,

 

Whilst I'm not happy with what seems to have happened with Wilsons, is it not yourself who has previously warned us about publishing speculation rather than fact, because it can sometimes damage companies unnecessarily ?

 

Unless you know Wilsons have folded again, should you really be saying anything ?

 

Apologies if I am covering old ground, but I read a suggestion that Wilsons covers business ran as a separate company to the furniture side which remained solvent. Two minutes suggests that only one company exists, Wilsons of Kinver Ltd which is involuntary liquidation.

 

Can someone confirm that you can not continue to trade if in voluntary liquidation 9n which case Wilsons must be trading under a different name.

 

BTW it was 113 boats at Braunston.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[alan_fincher]

BTW it was 113 boats at Braunston.

 

List them then, and what criteria has to be met for inclusion in the list.

 

I'm currently doubting that there were even 100 boats there that actually booked in to be there, and were present for at least some of both days.

 

I really can't see how a working boat passing through, a part constructed (or deconstructed) boat on someone's slip or yard, or an ex working boat that happens to moor in Braunston, but unoccupied on its home mooring, actually qualify.

 

If it's 113, what were they, then we can discuss it!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

List them then, and what criteria has to be met for inclusion in the list.

 

I'm currently doubting that there were even 100 boats there that actually booked in to be there, and were present for at least some of both days.

 

I really can't see how a working boat passing through, a part constructed (or deconstructed) boat on someone's slip or yard, or an ex working boat that happens to moor in Braunston, but unoccupied on its home mooring, actually qualify.

 

If it's 113, what were they, then we can discuss it!

 

 

Don't shoot the piano player!

 

You will have to ask my old friend Graham Scouthern (nb Joseph) who I believe was harbormaster for the event and was also wearing some sort of badge claiming responsibility for the parades.

 

Graham gave me that figure based on bookings, no shows, those moored at Braunston, shows without bookings and a vague promise that Narrowboatworld would print a picture of him in his day glow tabbard.

[Ally]

Isn't that what John (Cotswoldman) has already done ?

 

 

Ally,

 

Whilst I'm not happy with what seems to have happened with Wilsons, is it not yourself who has previously warned us about publishing speculation rather than fact, because it can sometimes damage companies unnecessarily ?

 

Unless you know Wilsons have folded again, should you really be saying anything ?

perhaps the mods would wish to remove post.

Fair point...I cannot confirm as I am not at work this week, but someone I know has been told it by 'Wilsons'. I would trust the person in question. However...not personal, so yes, fair point.....I'm off the thread.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Ally

[alan_fincher]

........ and a vague promise that Narrowboatworld would print a picture of him in his day glow tabbard.

 

OK Now I know we are talking "dead accurate" - suddenly you have convinced me..... (NOT! )

[cotswoldsman]

I had a cover made by "Wilsons" 2/3 months ago and was told that I would get the cover VAT free because they were restructuring and the new company was under the VAT threshold, the company was just coming out of a "shut down" period. My cover does not have the Wilsons logo on it so I'm assuming it's not made by the old company.

 

No wonder work in progress was only £800 and stock £10,000 I am sure the creditors would find this interesting.

[Kinver Canopies]

Are they a bit cheaper??

 

I think we are...

 

Quotes over the phone are no problem.

 

Always happy to help.

 

 

Regards

Ian

[nb Innisfree]

I had a cover made by "Wilsons" 2/3 months ago and was told that I would get the cover VAT free because they were restructuring and the new company was under the VAT threshold, the company was just coming out of a "shut down" period. My cover does not have the Wilsons logo on it so I'm assuming it's not made by the old company.

 

Funny that, a couple of years ago when I saw the rough job made with a cratch cover I sarcastically suggested to a certain person from Wi*sons that it would be a good idea to remove their label.