Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > Canada
Reload this Page >

Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Old Sep 9th 2017, 5:09 pm
  #631  
Just Joined
 
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 29
Brainwave is an unknown quantity at this point
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Dear Almost Canadian

This Forum is for doctors wishing to emigrate to Canada, you are not helping the case, and you certainly have turned this topic into a rant against doctors. we had enough of this "lazy, fat cat doctors rant " in Daily Mail. What did it do? drive us away in hordes, come back to England and you will see the waiting times, the drive to recruit from anywhere in the world for GPS.
You have fixed ideas and perhaps a little jealousy as well, so not worth arguing with you . But perhaps let this forum be what it is for, a place for GPs discussing pros and cons of moving to Canada.
Brainwave is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 7:15 pm
  #632  
BE Enthusiast
 
snoopdawg's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Okanagan Canada
Posts: 413
snoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Can't help but chip in! Sorry- long post!
So much prejudice above!
NO-ONE has done anything wrong- even JT admitted that this week ( not doubt begrudgingly).
We actually pay tax on the retained income several times- the government gets its taxes and more -just spread out over several years. We pay tax as retained income in the PC, then again on any investment income and then again when its drawn as income. So almost certainly MORE tax is paid on the same bit of income.
Problem is that trust boy JT has to have money NOW- he has lots to give to his pet projects, so he wants all the money now. Never mind what it will do to the back bone of the economy- small businesses.
Personally, I don't agree with income sprinkling, but I can see why some need it so there should be some accommodation for certain circumstances- e.g. spouses with young children, who can't work because the working partner works very long unsociable hours.
The rest- why shouldn't we keep and invest income to use as a pension.None of ours is in stocks/shares- its in projects providing jobs or housing/care- ethically I might add. I fail to see why that is a crime. Had we had to pay crazy personal tax rates on that money, those projects would not exist.

Small business people tend to be smart people whether they be hairdressers, cleaners, shop keepers or doctors. If they can mitigate some of the disadvantages of being self employed they will do. They are paying for extended benefits for their staff that they daren't touch themselves, as we know it increases our payments. Their staff get maternity pay, EI, WCB, holiday pay, parking paid for, uniforms. They get little perks paid for- we pay for a slap up Christmas party, great presents. Once a year we have a team building day, with a great meal thrown in. We are only a small office but we try to keep morale up as best we can.
We have overheads to pay, wages, office space, equipment, hydro, medical insurance, accountancy fees, bookkeepers, legal fees, college fees, etc etc. We need contingency for sick leave, mat leave ( not us thankfully!!!), holidays.
The employed often get even their MSP fees paid for them!!!
Their take home pay is just that.
So AC "accountant friend" version of pay is gross, not net, net is very different.
Using nurses and teachers as an example is terrible- they get decent pay rises each year and have numerous great benefits, copious amounts of sick leave is a common one.
Our pay rise last year was tiny- can't find it at present. Our staff wanted about 10%. Expect physicians to ask for much more from now on. Ontario's doctors actually took a pay cut recently.Incidentally at one point, they were actively encouraged by the Ontario government to incorporate instead of taking a pay rise.
So when this appalling change comes in, the lawyers, accountants , contractors will be raising their rates.
The smaller business people will be stuck, the shop keepers etc, they have more competition and some will struggle.
As physicians , we are also stuck, we WILL expect the same raises as others now- maybe linked to MP pay!. We will also be looking at the rates we charge lawyers, insurance companies and patients for private work- paperwork- the stuff that takes up hours of our private time. At present we charge half of recommended rates, maybe it needs to be the full amount. We usually charge nothing for sick notes etc, but we can, so maybe we should and let the patients know why.

Will patients suffer? Its ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Young doctors are already looking south. Older doctors are thinking of retiring ( after tax, overheads, professional fees, accountants etc, they will take home maybe 1/3 of their pay as a guess- maybe less dependant on overheads)
Expect doctors to be increasingly hard to find.Not just GPs but specialist's as well. They will charge patients more for private forms etc.

Yes AC, you do have to see your GP- she will need to tick a box to get paid for your DM- I fail to see why she should look after you and take responsibility for your care/prescriptions for free- a lawyer like you will soon be after her if something went wrong- charging more fees of course to make up for lost income.
How many lawyers do work for free? Especially work they could be sued for!

Rant over!
For GPs from elsewhere looking at this thread:
We did not move for money. We were unhappy with the UK, the doctor bashing, the negativity of the UK as a whole, the NHS- tick box medicine etc.
I've always wanted and felt I should live elsewhere, I'd just never found that place until I came to Canada. We both fell in love with Canada at the same time, in Safeway parking lot in Canmore.
It took us a while to find ways and the courage to move. We left an amazing house, in a gorgeous area of North Norfolk, with Stinky having a great job.
The financial aspect of being a GP in Canada was very low on our list of priorities. We knew nothing of being incorporated and trusts etc, they came as a pleasant surprise once we moved. BUT then became crucial to our financial success here.
So would we still have moved minus the advantages of incorporation- yes we would. But we would be no better off financially than the UK- I guess we would be looking at working longer- when we arrived some of the older GPs, who will have had the ability to incorporate late in their working lives, were still working in their late 80's!!!

So if you love Canada, go for it, but if you wish to improve your financial situation, look elsewhere if these changes come in. You have valuable skills and if Canada can't appreciate that, somewhere else will!
snoopdawg is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 7:16 pm
  #633  
I need a walk
 
Stinkypup's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Location: Okanagan
Posts: 4,895
Stinkypup has a reputation beyond reputeStinkypup has a reputation beyond reputeStinkypup has a reputation beyond reputeStinkypup has a reputation beyond reputeStinkypup has a reputation beyond reputeStinkypup has a reputation beyond reputeStinkypup has a reputation beyond reputeStinkypup has a reputation beyond reputeStinkypup has a reputation beyond reputeStinkypup has a reputation beyond reputeStinkypup has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

On BE, no thread is the absolute preserve of any one particular group. I certainly don't have an issue in this instance with contributions to the GP thread, thread drift is a reality and I would expect nothing less! Whilst I might not agree, I have no problems with JonboyE's contribution, at least he knows what he's talking about-AC is however another kettle of fish.

It is clear from your posts that there is a combination of both ignorance as well as arrogance, evidently you have one large chip on your shoulder and an absolute contempt for doctors and therefore I am not sure that your participation in this thread is in any way constructive as your rambling diatribe against what you perceives as lazy thieving useless doctors demonstrates.

My discussion tried to emphasise that this issue does not just simply affect doctors or lawyers or accountants etc., it is all small businesses. That is a quite significant group of the population within Canada-for some reason, you cannot not grasp this concept and just centered it in on doctors to continue venting your spleen and contempt towards that professional group.

I believe that you are being incredibly naïve if you think that this will not impact on the labour force who work for small businesses and that things will carry on as normal. I have no doubt that there will be job losses as a result of this action. It seems that you believe that you know best with regard to health screening-nevermind evidence-based medicine, if your doctor in the UK was issuing prescriptions without review I would suggest that they are themselves bordering on the negligent as suitable reviews and have to occur to ensure that medications are actually doing the job that they are supposed to such checks/tests are carried out to ensure that they are not causing harm to the patient. I pity your poor GP, I could just imagine your grumpy little face as you sit fuming coming waiting to see her. No doubt, I bet you long for the day that you can buy your medications online so that you can avoid having any contact with these negligent, lazy fraudsters.... until you turn up in ER begging for attention for your hurty knee.

This is a contentious and polarising issue and there will inevitably be people at either end of the spectrum who disagree with each other. I have no issue with this, that is healthy debate. You AC however stoop to an incredibly low level of mudslinging which does not merit any further response

Weirdly public perceptions of doctors and indeed lawyers seem to not match yours AC

https://insightswest.com/news/nurses...professionals/

Last edited by Stinkypup; Sep 9th 2017 at 7:29 pm.
Stinkypup is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 7:43 pm
  #634  
Muskoka, Ontario
 
Tirytory's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,969
Tirytory has a reputation beyond reputeTirytory has a reputation beyond reputeTirytory has a reputation beyond reputeTirytory has a reputation beyond reputeTirytory has a reputation beyond reputeTirytory has a reputation beyond reputeTirytory has a reputation beyond reputeTirytory has a reputation beyond reputeTirytory has a reputation beyond reputeTirytory has a reputation beyond reputeTirytory has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

It's also very unprofessional of AC's accountant to be disclosing presumably his other clients confidential accounts. I would imagine any of his clients would take a dim view of it.
Tirytory is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 7:58 pm
  #635  
Tea Drinker
 
Danny B's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 4,631
Danny B has a reputation beyond reputeDanny B has a reputation beyond reputeDanny B has a reputation beyond reputeDanny B has a reputation beyond reputeDanny B has a reputation beyond reputeDanny B has a reputation beyond reputeDanny B has a reputation beyond reputeDanny B has a reputation beyond reputeDanny B has a reputation beyond reputeDanny B has a reputation beyond reputeDanny B has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Do people even go and see their GP anymore? I thought people just used the internet and diagnosed their symptoms that way?





I'm joking
Danny B is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 8:15 pm
  #636  
Binned by Muderators
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,631
JonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Just a couple of things:

Originally Posted by Stinkypup View Post
...He does use somewhat strange words including a repetition of the word mischief although I suppose this is somewhat less offensive than Trudeau and his colleagues inferring some kind of criminal activity ...
Mischief is a commonly used word in tax talk. It describes a situation where taxpayers, perfectly legally, achieve an outcome that was not intended by the law makers. It is not insulting or intended to be offensive.

The relatively small amount of money that they recover from this,will create massive bad will amongst thousands and thousands of small-business owners within the country with inevitable lay-offs of staff as work forces will have to shrink.
I am deliberately trying to avoid the party political aspects so am just sticking to public policy. To repeat some of my earlier post, the tax rates on profits up to $500,000 for Canadian Controlled Private Corporations (CCPCs) are low. The policy objective is to enable the CCPC to reinvest its earnings to grow revenue and hire workers. Nothing in these proposed changes will affect this in any way. Nothing in the proposed changes will cause layoffs or work forces to shrink.

What will be affected is that part of the profit that is earned in active business, but that is not reinvested in the active business. The Finance Department's position is that income that is not used to create growth and new jobs should not benefit from the low rate applied to income that is. Passive investments do not create jobs.

interestingly being an accountant, he has not indicated whether he is himself incorporated, self-employed or working as an employee within a larger accounting firm.
TBH, on a thread discussing public policy I did not think my personal circumstances were all that relevant. Since you ask, although the JonboyE Mega Enterprises International Corporation does exist, it exists only in a filing cabinet. I do business as a sole proprietor. This is publicly available information.

Anyway, I suspect these proposals will be considerably watered down before they get anywhere near legislation.
JonboyE is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 8:24 pm
  #637  
BE Enthusiast
 
snoopdawg's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Okanagan Canada
Posts: 413
snoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Originally Posted by JonboyE View Post

What will be affected is that part of the profit that is earned in active business, but that is not reinvested in the active business. The Finance Department's position is that income that is not used to create growth and new jobs should not benefit from the low rate applied to income that is. Passive investments do not create jobs.
But as you know, some will use that money to create other businesses, that for e.g. will create jobs- for the construction industry initially, then for employees .
How should that money be taxed? This isn't passive investment.
snoopdawg is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 8:36 pm
  #638  
Binned by Muderators
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,631
JonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Originally Posted by snoopdawg View Post
Can't help but chip in!
Me too.

We actually pay tax on the retained income several times- the government gets its taxes and more -just spread out over several years. We pay tax as retained income in the PC, then again on any investment income and then again when its drawn as income. So almost certainly MORE tax is paid on the same bit of income.
As I mentioned earlier, this is not the case. Tax rates are set such that the same amount of tax (within rounding errors) is paid on a stream of income regardless of the way it is earned. This is not a party political issue. It has been like this for decades. You are right that you get to defer some of the tax until you withdraw it from the corporation.
JonboyE is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 8:41 pm
  #639  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Almost Canadian's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,043
Almost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Originally Posted by Tirytory View Post
It's also very unprofessional of AC's accountant to be disclosing presumably his other clients confidential accounts. I would imagine any of his clients would take a dim view of it.
It was an illustrative number. He didn't give me exact figures. However, as I have dealt with a number of divorces involving doctors I am well aware of the ball park figures that doctors across the country earn.

I accept that my reference to teachers and nurses made a bad point. I was trying to suggest that self employed people that earn significantly less than doctors do have to provide for their own retirements too.

I didn't intend for this to be a rant against doctors. It was intended to simply point out that the use of corporations to avoid paying tax in the circumstances outlined by our accountant friend above cannot easily be defended. This applies to all occupations. Despite the fact that I have asked, no one has been able to provide an example of how any small business will be affected other than having to pay more tax.

I run my small business as a sole prop too. I am happy for others to run their businesses however they wish to but, it seems to me that, if a sole prop earns income of $100,000 a year, they should pay the same amount of tax as someone that also earns $100,000 a year but elects to run that income through a company. I do understand the difference between gross and net income.

It would appear that loopholes that have existed, and which have been exploited perfectly sensibly, will be closed and, so far, I haven't seen any sensible reason as to why they shouldn't from anyone on this thread

I attempted to argue a position without resorting to personal attacks. Others have elected not to do so - that is an issue for them.

Last edited by Almost Canadian; Sep 9th 2017 at 8:57 pm.
Almost Canadian is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 8:42 pm
  #640  
BE Enthusiast
 
snoopdawg's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Okanagan Canada
Posts: 413
snoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Originally Posted by JonboyE View Post
Me too.



As I mentioned earlier, this is not the case. Tax rates are set such that the same amount of tax (within rounding errors) is paid on a stream of income regardless of the way it is earned. This is not a party political issue. It has been like this for decades. You are right that you get to defer some of the tax until you withdraw it from the corporation.
So If we pay 13% tax on retained 100K, then tax on income generated by that money- when we draw it as pension- they deduct the tax already paid??? So less paid when drawn as income?
snoopdawg is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 8:58 pm
  #641  
Binned by Muderators
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,631
JonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Originally Posted by snoopdawg View Post
But as you know, some will use that money to create other businesses, that for e.g. will create jobs- for the construction industry initially, then for employees .
How should that money be taxed? This isn't passive investment.
It depends on your level of involvement in the entities you have invested in. To pick an example, I can invest in shares in the Trans Mountain project. This will create plenty of jobs, but my involvement is just to pay for the shares and receive the dividends. It is therefore passive income.

For the investment you describe, if your reward is for providing capital it is passive income. If you are rewarded for swinging a hammer, or for providing management services, then it will be active income and not subject to these proposals.
JonboyE is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 9:11 pm
  #642  
Binned by Muderators
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 11,631
JonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond reputeJonboyE has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Originally Posted by snoopdawg View Post
So If we pay 13% tax on retained 100K, then tax on income generated by that money- when we draw it as pension- they deduct the tax already paid??? So less paid when drawn as income?
More or less. When you withdraw retained earnings the amount is grossed up on your personal tax return to approximate the before-tax income in the corporation. You are then given a credit against personal tax owing to approximate the tax the corporation has already paid.

Using simplified numbers, the $100k is taxed at 13% so the corporation has $87k left. If it pays $87k to you as a dividend you put $100k as taxable income on your personal return and deduct $13k from the tax you owe.

There are rounding errors but unless you are talking of substantial amounts of money the integration works pretty well.
JonboyE is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 9:16 pm
  #643  
BE Enthusiast
 
snoopdawg's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Okanagan Canada
Posts: 413
snoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Thumbs up re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Originally Posted by JonboyE View Post
It depends on your level of involvement in the entities you have invested in. To pick an example, I can invest in shares in the Trans Mountain project. This will create plenty of jobs, but my involvement is just to pay for the shares and receive the dividends. It is therefore passive income.

For the investment you describe, if your reward is for providing capital it is passive income. If you are rewarded for swinging a hammer, or for providing management services, then it will be active income and not subject to these proposals.
Ok thank you
Thats valuable info!
I see a trip to my accountant in the near future to discuss
snoopdawg is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 9:21 pm
  #644  
BE Enthusiast
 
snoopdawg's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Okanagan Canada
Posts: 413
snoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Originally Posted by JonboyE View Post
More or less. When you withdraw retained earnings the amount is grossed up on your personal tax return to approximate the before-tax income in the corporation. You are then given a credit against personal tax owing to approximate the tax the corporation has already paid.

Using simplified numbers, the $100k is taxed at 13% so the corporation has $87k left. If it pays $87k to you as a dividend you put $100k as taxable income on your personal return and deduct $13k from the tax you owe.

There are rounding errors but unless you are talking of substantial amounts of money the integration works pretty well.
This is interesting and why we need accountants! Thanks for explaining it clearly.
Everyone I've spoken to about this thinks the opposite.
But again, if we are only deferring tax, not avoiding but it leaves money to create other businesses, why not leave things be? The Government will get its cash eventually.
I can accept the income sprinkling bit, and the capital gains bit , I just don't understand- I assume we haven't done it!
snoopdawg is offline  
Old Sep 9th 2017, 9:34 pm
  #645  
BE Enthusiast
 
snoopdawg's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Okanagan Canada
Posts: 413
snoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond reputesnoopdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default re: Chat for and with Canadian Family Practitioners/ex UK General Practitioners

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian View Post
I attempted to argue a position without resorting to personal attacks. Others have elected not to do so - that is an issue for them.
Cats/dogs, English /Scottish, United/Liverpool , Corrie/Eastenders, Doctors/Lawyers
Enter the lions den....
I would stay out of a lawyer thread for fear of my life!

Last edited by snoopdawg; Sep 9th 2017 at 9:37 pm. Reason: couldn't let that word go without an appropriate smilie!
snoopdawg is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.