Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
But at the top rates, the distortion is reversed, because the 39.35% dividend tax, when added to 25% corporate tax, is higher than the 47% income tax+NI.
So it's complicated.
There's a very strong argument for allowing dividends to be tax deductible for companies, then making them subject to normal rates of income tax. It would simplify the tax system and eliminate one of the largest distortions there is.
But it's a very bold step so probably won't happen.
It would also discourage excessive leverage. (Or rather remove the tax shield that makes debt so attractive.)
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
@BartholomewRoberts has forgotten that corporation tax needs to be paid on dividends.
So £10,000 is pre tax income - income tax at 19% is £810
+ dividend tax at £60.75
So that £10,000 provides £749.25 of post tax income
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
@BartholomewRoberts has forgotten that corporation tax needs to be paid on dividends.
So £10,000 is pre tax income - income tax at 19% is £810
+ dividend tax at £60.75
So that £10,000 provides £749.25 of post tax income
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
@BartholomewRoberts has forgotten that corporation tax needs to be paid on dividends.
So £10,000 is pre tax income - income tax at 19% is £810
+ dividend tax at £60.75
So that £10,000 provides £749.25 of post tax income
"The manufacturer of Mounjaro has apologised to UK patients who are "experiencing interruption" due to their sharp price increase and admitted that political pressure from Donald Trump influenced its decision. In its first interview since announcing the price hike, Eli Lilly’s Medical Associate Vice President, Emily Pegg, told ITV News Health Correspondent Rebecca Barry the drug’s slow NHS rollout increases the risk of people turning to the black market."
I admit I was wrong: I thought the idea that Trump's actions would make companies increase prices worldwide was fanciful and contra how markets operate. After all, why would the price be lower than achievable in that market in the first place? Turns out, sometimes, extreme political pressure can do just that.
Presumably that means less profit in those markets - otherwise why not price that way in the first place. But appeasing Trump must be worth it...
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
@BartholomewRoberts has forgotten that corporation tax needs to be paid on dividends.
So £10,000 is pre tax income - income tax at 19% is £810
+ dividend tax at £60.75
So that £10,000 provides £749.25 of post tax income
EXCLUSIVE: Labour MSP Colin Smyth "put secret camera in parliament toilet".
The Daily Record can reveal that Smyth, who has been suspended from the party after being charged in connection with possession of indecent images, also faces charges of placing a camera in a toilet at the Scottish Parliament building.
Have they got the blue tents outside his hoose yet?
Tiny countries tend to be corrupt. An independent Scotland at 5.5m is probably big enough to escape that. But being an MSP today is a position of such irrelevance it probably attracts the wrong sort.
Though even (especially?) in this irrelevant wee place, there seems a disproportionate interest in their doings.
I would be happy if Scotland had roughly the same press profile as any other geographic grouping of 5.5m people in the UK. But it's a nation - and so it punches above its weight institutionally. With the BBC, for example. "Scotland xxxxx" will always matter more than "Yorkshire xxxxx", identically-sized populations notwithstanding.
BBC Yorkshire isn’t involved in stopping Yorkshire seceding from the UK, BBC Scotland otoh.. No idea on the quality of the former but the latter is parochial lowbrow rubbish which if it ceased to exist would make no one’s life worse except the low wattage careerists it employs. As one unionist suggests, it only has one real function.
EXCLUSIVE: Labour MSP Colin Smyth "put secret camera in parliament toilet".
The Daily Record can reveal that Smyth, who has been suspended from the party after being charged in connection with possession of indecent images, also faces charges of placing a camera in a toilet at the Scottish Parliament building.
Have they got the blue tents outside his hoose yet?
Tiny countries tend to be corrupt. An independent Scotland at 5.5m is probably big enough to escape that. But being an MSP today is a position of such irrelevance it probably attracts the wrong sort.
Though even (especially?) in this irrelevant wee place, there seems a disproportionate interest in their doings.
I would be happy if Scotland had roughly the same press profile as any other geographic grouping of 5.5m people in the UK. But it's a nation - and so it punches above its weight institutionally. With the BBC, for example. "Scotland xxxxx" will always matter more than "Yorkshire xxxxx", identically-sized populations notwithstanding.
BBC Yorkshire isn’t involved in stopping Yorkshire seceding from the UK, BBC Scotland otoh.. No idea on the quality of the former but the latter is parochial lowbrow rubbish which if it ceased to exist would make no one’s life worse except the low wattage careerists it employs. As one unionist suggests, it only has one real function.
Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.
The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.
In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.
The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.
“Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.
“However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”
They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.
How do other european governments, under the same ECHR obligations, manage to house asylum seekers in tents rather than hotels?
In Ireland they basically ignore it when they are told that they're breaching the asylum seekers human rights.
Not sure that ignoring the law is something we want governments to be in the habit of doing.
"International law" is more guidelines than actual rules.
Implement domestic law, yes. International ones should be subservient to Parliamentary laws.
Government should change not break domestic laws, but international ones aren't subject to Parliamentary amendments which is why they should never be conflated with actual, domestic laws.
You been saying, for years, that international laws are guidelines rather than rules. But it's not really true. Even in the UK. Just because it was a phrase used in Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't make it gospel.
Yes, the UK adopts a dualist approach that means that domestic statute takes precedence over international treaties. 100% agree. However, treaties have always been persuasive (albeit not binding) authority, like decisions from courts at the same level are.
For example, if an Act of Parliament is ambiguous, courts must presume that Parliament intended it to comply with the UK’s international obligations (e.g. Salomon v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1967]) and in R v Lyons [2002] the HoL said treaties should influence judicial reasoning, albeit they stressed they cannot override clear domestic law.
But other countries don't adopt a dualist approach.
In the monist system, like South Africa and France, international law and domestic law form a single legal order, you can't distinguish between the two. Even in some dualist systems, like your beloved Australia, ratification of a treaty creates a “legitimate expectation” that decision-makers will act in accordance with it, unless there is clear contrary policy (Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995)).
So, to say international laws are just "guidelines" is not true. It's a massive oversimplification. They're far more than that, even in dualist systems.
What do you think a guideline is?
To act in accordance unless there is clear, contrary policy is pretty much the meaning of a guideline.
As opposed to an actual rule, whereby you can't break the rule even if there is a clear, contrary policy.
The problem is that many people here and in power fetishise (hat tip kle4) international laws into being actual laws that the government is forbidden to break, even if they have or the voters want a clear, contrary policy.
And you're taking the piss if you think France has a single legal order whereby international laws are treated with the same respect as French laws. If French policy and international law conflict, then France 100% puts its own laws first - as it should.
Mate, I don’t like to pull an argument from authority, but I’m a qualified lawyer with a masters degree in international labour law who has lived and worked in Paris. I wrote my dissertation on comparative employment law in France, the U.K., Japan and the United States with a focus on implementation of the ILO conventions. I have litigated cross border disputes in France and elsewhere. I’ve actually been, many times, in French courtrooms while cases involving international law have been heard.
I don’t think, I know, and I have knowledge and experience in these matters you don’t. If you have evidence to back your assertions and contradict mine then please post them, as I had the courtesy to do for you, rather than resorting to crude ad hominems and evidence free assertions. Otherwise get back in your box.
"Mate" you can make all the appeals to authority you want, but that doesn't make the argument right. You can have your degree, but that doesn't mean (and I can quote plenty with similar experience in authority to substantiate this if you like) that your position is unquestionably true.
If you want a list of some more times that the French have put their own domestic laws and interests ahead of international laws, then here you go, here's a few for starters.
1. Banning British beef for years, violating EU rules, even after British beef was deemed safe by the EU. 2. Violating WTO rules, in breach of WTO rulings, to provide subsidies to Airbus. 3. Banning GMO crops despite EU approval. 4. Nuclear testing in the Pacific in violation of international law and ICJ disputes. 5. Repeatedly exceeding EU CFP fisheries quotas. 6. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. 7. Interventions in former colonies without UN mandates. 8. The ECHR has repeatedly ruled, across 11 separate cases, against confining families with children in France's administrative detention centres. French authorities have continued the practice refusing to implement all 11 rulings against them.
There's many more examples too. France puts its own policy first when it wants to do so.
😂
FFS. None - literally none - of what you posted proves your point. Many prove the exact opposite! They are examples of French State policy breaching the country’s law. A few expressly state that. That you are too stupid to understand that policy and law are distinct and concepts I cannot help. A government policy breaks the law. Quelle Surprise as some might say. It happens in every country.
That you are too stupid to understand that I cannot help. Read a book for the first time in your life, try to understand the difference between a substantive law and an executive action, and then come back to me.
You're really willing to die on this hill?
OK, if you want examples of French laws as opposed to French executive action explicitly overriding international law then here's a few more examples:
In both 1993 and 2003 France passed laws that explicitly provided that asylum seekers and irregular migrants could be expelled or detained notwithstanding protections granced under the ECHR.
The nuclear testing one that I mentioned earlier was again one were French law was used to override international law. France withdrew from ICJ compulsory jurisdiction and French laws were passed explicitly authorising continued testing despite international law. Again, laws not executive action.
The GMO one mentioned earlier was again done via French legislation prohibiting GMO products despite EU authorisation and despite the ECJ's insistince that member states could not unilaterally ban them. Again, law passed in France, not executive action.
The British beef example was initially done via executive action, but was subsequently reinforced through the use of decrees with legal force - law, not just executive action. Albeit from what I've read that's equivalent to the use of EG Statutory Instruments etc as opposed to an outright law, but still has legal force.
France passed laws violating with EU free movement of services requiring French digital data to be stored locally and imposing requirements beyond the EU's GDPR in violation of EU rules and WTO rules. Again, law, not executive action.
I'm not insulting you, despite your offensive language against me. If I'm wrong with these examples, please let me know how, but I've heard many lawyers before (including on this site) complain about France overriding international law when it suits her interests - both via their own laws (examples given) and executive action (examples given).
I'm giving examples, not insults. I'd appreciate if you can do the same, but if you want to just hurl insults again, then I can't stop you.
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
@BartholomewRoberts has forgotten that corporation tax needs to be paid on dividends.
So £10,000 is pre tax income - income tax at 19% is £810
+ dividend tax at £60.75
So that £10,000 provides £749.25 of post tax income
I've not forgotten corporation tax, I counted the corporation tax as a net reduction on the salary calculation because that is tax foregone that route.
You could do the inverse and count the corporation tax on the dividend route, but then no reduction on the salary route, and either way the calculation should end the same.
EXCLUSIVE: Labour MSP Colin Smyth "put secret camera in parliament toilet".
The Daily Record can reveal that Smyth, who has been suspended from the party after being charged in connection with possession of indecent images, also faces charges of placing a camera in a toilet at the Scottish Parliament building.
Have they got the blue tents outside his hoose yet?
Tiny countries tend to be corrupt. An independent Scotland at 5.5m is probably big enough to escape that. But being an MSP today is a position of such irrelevance it probably attracts the wrong sort.
Though even (especially?) in this irrelevant wee place, there seems a disproportionate interest in their doings.
I would be happy if Scotland had roughly the same press profile as any other geographic grouping of 5.5m people in the UK. But it's a nation - and so it punches above its weight institutionally. With the BBC, for example. "Scotland xxxxx" will always matter more than "Yorkshire xxxxx", identically-sized populations notwithstanding.
BBC Yorkshire isn’t involved in stopping Yorkshire seceding from the UK, BBC Scotland otoh.. No idea on the quality of the former but the latter is parochial lowbrow rubbish which if it ceased to exist would make no one’s life worse except the low wattage careerists it employs. As one unionist suggests, it only has one real function.
A bit ill tempered on here this arvo. Anyhoo on topic. The 20-1 I guess mostly refers to the potential of the Fruit & Nut movement.
Mr Palmer ex MP of these pages appears to be reserving judgement and would possibly switch allegiance. There are no doubt many in Parliament that might do the same if Labour starts consistently polling in 5th place nationally over the next year (some of whom might plausibly defect to Reform or even the SNP I suppose).
Is this a 20–1 shot? I dunno. But it doesn’t sound completely impossible, especially if there’s a gilt strike on top of the wider dissatisfaction.
Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.
The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.
In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.
The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.
“Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.
“However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”
They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.
How do other european governments, under the same ECHR obligations, manage to house asylum seekers in tents rather than hotels?
In Ireland they basically ignore it when they are told that they're breaching the asylum seekers human rights.
Not sure that ignoring the law is something we want governments to be in the habit of doing.
"International law" is more guidelines than actual rules.
Implement domestic law, yes. International ones should be subservient to Parliamentary laws.
Government should change not break domestic laws, but international ones aren't subject to Parliamentary amendments which is why they should never be conflated with actual, domestic laws.
You been saying, for years, that international laws are guidelines rather than rules. But it's not really true. Even in the UK. Just because it was a phrase used in Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't make it gospel.
Yes, the UK adopts a dualist approach that means that domestic statute takes precedence over international treaties. 100% agree. However, treaties have always been persuasive (albeit not binding) authority, like decisions from courts at the same level are.
For example, if an Act of Parliament is ambiguous, courts must presume that Parliament intended it to comply with the UK’s international obligations (e.g. Salomon v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1967]) and in R v Lyons [2002] the HoL said treaties should influence judicial reasoning, albeit they stressed they cannot override clear domestic law.
But other countries don't adopt a dualist approach.
In the monist system, like South Africa and France, international law and domestic law form a single legal order, you can't distinguish between the two. Even in some dualist systems, like your beloved Australia, ratification of a treaty creates a “legitimate expectation” that decision-makers will act in accordance with it, unless there is clear contrary policy (Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995)).
So, to say international laws are just "guidelines" is not true. It's a massive oversimplification. They're far more than that, even in dualist systems.
What do you think a guideline is?
To act in accordance unless there is clear, contrary policy is pretty much the meaning of a guideline.
As opposed to an actual rule, whereby you can't break the rule even if there is a clear, contrary policy.
The problem is that many people here and in power fetishise (hat tip kle4) international laws into being actual laws that the government is forbidden to break, even if they have or the voters want a clear, contrary policy.
And you're taking the piss if you think France has a single legal order whereby international laws are treated with the same respect as French laws. If French policy and international law conflict, then France 100% puts its own laws first - as it should.
Mate, I don’t like to pull an argument from authority, but I’m a qualified lawyer with a masters degree in international labour law who has lived and worked in Paris. I wrote my dissertation on comparative employment law in France, the U.K., Japan and the United States with a focus on implementation of the ILO conventions. I have litigated cross border disputes in France and elsewhere. I’ve actually been, many times, in French courtrooms while cases involving international law have been heard.
I don’t think, I know, and I have knowledge and experience in these matters you don’t. If you have evidence to back your assertions and contradict mine then please post them, as I had the courtesy to do for you, rather than resorting to crude ad hominems and evidence free assertions. Otherwise get back in your box.
"Mate" you can make all the appeals to authority you want, but that doesn't make the argument right. You can have your degree, but that doesn't mean (and I can quote plenty with similar experience in authority to substantiate this if you like) that your position is unquestionably true.
If you want a list of some more times that the French have put their own domestic laws and interests ahead of international laws, then here you go, here's a few for starters.
1. Banning British beef for years, violating EU rules, even after British beef was deemed safe by the EU. 2. Violating WTO rules, in breach of WTO rulings, to provide subsidies to Airbus. 3. Banning GMO crops despite EU approval. 4. Nuclear testing in the Pacific in violation of international law and ICJ disputes. 5. Repeatedly exceeding EU CFP fisheries quotas. 6. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. 7. Interventions in former colonies without UN mandates. 8. The ECHR has repeatedly ruled, across 11 separate cases, against confining families with children in France's administrative detention centres. French authorities have continued the practice refusing to implement all 11 rulings against them.
There's many more examples too. France puts its own policy first when it wants to do so.
😂
FFS. None - literally none - of what you posted proves your point. Many prove the exact opposite! They are examples of French State policy breaching the country’s law. A few expressly state that. That you are too stupid to understand that policy and law are distinct and concepts I cannot help. A government policy breaks the law. Quelle Surprise as some might say. It happens in every country.
That you are too stupid to understand that I cannot help. Read a book for the first time in your life, try to understand the difference between a substantive law and an executive action, and then come back to me.
You're really willing to die on this hill?
OK, if you want examples of French laws as opposed to French executive action explicitly overriding international law then here's a few more examples:
In both 1993 and 2003 France passed laws that explicitly provided that asylum seekers and irregular migrants could be expelled or detained notwithstanding protections granced under the ECHR.
The nuclear testing one that I mentioned earlier was again one were French law was used to override international law. France withdrew from ICJ compulsory jurisdiction and French laws were passed explicitly authorising continued testing despite international law. Again, laws not executive action.
The GMO one mentioned earlier was again done via French legislation prohibiting GMO products despite EU authorisation and despite the ECJ's insistince that member states could not unilaterally ban them. Again, law passed in France, not executive action.
The British beef example was initially done via executive action, but was subsequently reinforced through the use of decrees with legal force - law, not just executive action. Albeit from what I've read that's equivalent to the use of EG Statutory Instruments etc as opposed to an outright law, but still has legal force.
France passed laws violating with EU free movement of services requiring French digital data to be stored locally and imposing requirements beyond the EU's GDPR in violation of EU rules and WTO rules. Again, law, not executive action.
I'm not insulting you, despite your offensive language against me. If I'm wrong with these examples, please let me know how, but I've heard many lawyers before (including on this site) complain about France overriding international law when it suits her interests - both via their own laws (examples given) and executive action (examples given).
I'm giving examples, not insults. I'd appreciate if you can do the same, but if you want to just hurl insults again, then I can't stop you.
DougSeal resorting to abuse and insults. Well I’m stunned. Most out of character.
Whilst there is a mod around… do you ever check in on posters who “disappear”? For example SeaShantyIrish who disappeared the day Trump got elected, he could have just keeled over with rage or decided to never discuss politics again but a surprising disappearance all the same.
You guys obviously have an email for everyone who posts so do you/can you drop an email and see if they have just bugged out from politics or disappeared for other reasons.
A bit of a shame and a worry when posters just vanish and not everyone will have arranged for someone to share the good news of, for example, my passing when it happens, with PB. Thanks in advance.
A couple of forums I used to go on had threads dedicated to former members who had, sadly, passed.
A bit ill tempered on here this arvo. Anyhoo on topic. The 20-1 I guess mostly refers to the potential of the Fruit & Nut movement.
Mr Palmer ex MP of these pages appears to be reserving judgement and would possibly switch allegiance. There are no doubt many in Parliament that might do the same if Labour starts consistently polling in 5th place nationally over the next year (some of whom might plausibly defect to Reform or even the SNP I suppose).
Is this a 20–1 shot? I dunno. But it doesn’t sound completely impossible, especially if there’s a gilt strike on top of the wider dissatisfaction.
I would put the chance of more than 5 Lab MPs defecting to Sultana's party at less than 20/1, and zero reason for them to vote down Starmer's government in a VONC. Why would they want an early election?
A police officer is facing the sack for following two boys on an e-bike shortly before they died in a crash.
Kyrees Sullivan, 16, and Harvey Evans, 15, were killed in May 2023 when they crashed on an e-bike minutes after CCTV showed them being followed by a police van in Ely, Cardiff.
The van was approximately half a mile away from the e-bike, on a different road, when the fatal collision occurred, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said.
Following their deaths, rioting and disorder broke out, leaving dozens of police officers injured, property damaged and cars set alight.
In April this year, the Crown Prosecution Service said the police officer driving the van would not face criminal charges.
However, on Thursday, the IOPC announced that the officer, who has not been named, would still face gross misconduct proceedings over his actions before and after the crash.
A bit ill tempered on here this arvo. Anyhoo on topic. The 20-1 I guess mostly refers to the potential of the Fruit & Nut movement.
Mr Palmer ex MP of these pages appears to be reserving judgement and would possibly switch allegiance. There are no doubt many in Parliament that might do the same if Labour starts consistently polling in 5th place nationally over the next year (some of whom might plausibly defect to Reform or even the SNP I suppose).
Is this a 20–1 shot? I dunno. But it doesn’t sound completely impossible, especially if there’s a gilt strike on top of the wider dissatisfaction.
I would put the chance of more than 5 Lab MPs defecting to Sultana's party at less than 20/1, and zero reason for them to vote down Starmer's government in a VONC. Why would they want an early election?
They'd probably double the number of seats they have. Would that be worth it if the risk is Farage in number 10?
A bit ill tempered on here this arvo. Anyhoo on topic. The 20-1 I guess mostly refers to the potential of the Fruit & Nut movement.
Mr Palmer ex MP of these pages appears to be reserving judgement and would possibly switch allegiance. There are no doubt many in Parliament that might do the same if Labour starts consistently polling in 5th place nationally over the next year (some of whom might plausibly defect to Reform or even the SNP I suppose).
Is this a 20–1 shot? I dunno. But it doesn’t sound completely impossible, especially if there’s a gilt strike on top of the wider dissatisfaction.
It's not impossible, merely improbable. The fruit and nut brigade would need to feel themselves so securely in control they would leapfrog Labour (and potentially be the official opposition). What they don't want to do is bring down the government, but be relegated to third or fourth place in the Commons.
20-1 is not appealing, but as you note, there are circumstances where it is possible.
A bit ill tempered on here this arvo. Anyhoo on topic. The 20-1 I guess mostly refers to the potential of the Fruit & Nut movement.
Mr Palmer ex MP of these pages appears to be reserving judgement and would possibly switch allegiance. There are no doubt many in Parliament that might do the same if Labour starts consistently polling in 5th place nationally over the next year (some of whom might plausibly defect to Reform or even the SNP I suppose).
Is this a 20–1 shot? I dunno. But it doesn’t sound completely impossible, especially if there’s a gilt strike on top of the wider dissatisfaction.
I would put the chance of more than 5 Lab MPs defecting to Sultana's party at less than 20/1, and zero reason for them to vote down Starmer's government in a VONC. Why would they want an early election?
If Reform were on 30%, and the Sultanas on 20%, with the LibDems and Conservatives on 15% each, then there's the historic opportunity to become the offical voice of the Left.
But that's longer odds than 20-1 while Ms Sultana and the Magic Grandpa are in charge.
“I am extremely alarmed at the firing of the CDC director…I see no basis for her firing. It is highly significant that her removal led to the immediate resignation of four other top officials who have served at the CDC for decades in some cases”
Had two friends from my youth die this week. Age 56 and 57. Neither smoked or were overweight. One an ex-professional sportsman. Very sobering.
Comiserations. Had always planned to keep drinking until told otherwise by a doctor. But dying before being told otherwise not really on my radar. Working on losing weight though.
“I am extremely alarmed at the firing of the CDC director…I see no basis for her firing. It is highly significant that her removal led to the immediate resignation of four other top officials who have served at the CDC for decades in some cases”
Just want to give a shout out to all of the Republican Senators who professed deep concern about vaccine science and public health and then voted to put literally the most famous anti-vaxxer in the world in charge of running America's health care system. Bravo you guys
Meanwhile, in "tradition is the democracy of the dead" news,
Sharon Carby, aged 70, from Bradford, sadly died in July 2024. But that didn’t stop Reform UK six months later picking her as their Croydon mayoral candidate.
Meanwhile, in "tradition is the democracy of the dead" news,
Sharon Carby, aged 70, from Bradford, sadly died in July 2024. But that didn’t stop Reform UK six months later picking her as their Croydon mayoral candidate.
“I am extremely alarmed at the firing of the CDC director…I see no basis for her firing. It is highly significant that her removal led to the immediate resignation of four other top officials who have served at the CDC for decades in some cases”
Yeah, but she will still vote with the Republicans when it comes to it. She's been flirting with rebellion for a decade or more as a means of conning people in a fairly liberal state to vote for her.
Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.
The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.
In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.
The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.
“Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.
“However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”
They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.
How do other european governments, under the same ECHR obligations, manage to house asylum seekers in tents rather than hotels?
In Ireland they basically ignore it when they are told that they're breaching the asylum seekers human rights.
Not sure that ignoring the law is something we want governments to be in the habit of doing.
"International law" is more guidelines than actual rules.
Implement domestic law, yes. International ones should be subservient to Parliamentary laws.
Government should change not break domestic laws, but international ones aren't subject to Parliamentary amendments which is why they should never be conflated with actual, domestic laws.
You been saying, for years, that international laws are guidelines rather than rules. But it's not really true. Even in the UK. Just because it was a phrase used in Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't make it gospel.
Yes, the UK adopts a dualist approach that means that domestic statute takes precedence over international treaties. 100% agree. However, treaties have always been persuasive (albeit not binding) authority, like decisions from courts at the same level are.
For example, if an Act of Parliament is ambiguous, courts must presume that Parliament intended it to comply with the UK’s international obligations (e.g. Salomon v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1967]) and in R v Lyons [2002] the HoL said treaties should influence judicial reasoning, albeit they stressed they cannot override clear domestic law.
But other countries don't adopt a dualist approach.
In the monist system, like South Africa and France, international law and domestic law form a single legal order, you can't distinguish between the two. Even in some dualist systems, like your beloved Australia, ratification of a treaty creates a “legitimate expectation” that decision-makers will act in accordance with it, unless there is clear contrary policy (Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995)).
So, to say international laws are just "guidelines" is not true. It's a massive oversimplification. They're far more than that, even in dualist systems.
What do you think a guideline is?
To act in accordance unless there is clear, contrary policy is pretty much the meaning of a guideline.
As opposed to an actual rule, whereby you can't break the rule even if there is a clear, contrary policy.
The problem is that many people here and in power fetishise (hat tip kle4) international laws into being actual laws that the government is forbidden to break, even if they have or the voters want a clear, contrary policy.
And you're taking the piss if you think France has a single legal order whereby international laws are treated with the same respect as French laws. If French policy and international law conflict, then France 100% puts its own laws first - as it should.
Mate, I don’t like to pull an argument from authority, but I’m a qualified lawyer with a masters degree in international labour law who has lived and worked in Paris. I wrote my dissertation on comparative employment law in France, the U.K., Japan and the United States with a focus on implementation of the ILO conventions. I have litigated cross border disputes in France and elsewhere. I’ve actually been, many times, in French courtrooms while cases involving international law have been heard.
I don’t think, I know, and I have knowledge and experience in these matters you don’t. If you have evidence to back your assertions and contradict mine then please post them, as I had the courtesy to do for you, rather than resorting to crude ad hominems and evidence free assertions. Otherwise get back in your box.
France certainly has employment laws that massively favour the worker. Any attempt to reduce these is met with fierce resistance; finding hotels & housing for migrants near Calais ? Not so much.
I believe that France, like Spain has increasing numbers of jobs outside the protections. You hear a lot of stuff from Spanish grads who can only get factory jobs on some variation on a zero hours contract with no benefits.
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
@BartholomewRoberts has forgotten that corporation tax needs to be paid on dividends.
So £10,000 is pre tax income - income tax at 19% is £810
+ dividend tax at £60.75
So that £10,000 provides £749.25 of post tax income
92.5% tax rate.
Jesus.
That's worse than LA.
You’re forgetting that in the US, tax breaks reduce that by 108%.
“I am extremely alarmed at the firing of the CDC director…I see no basis for her firing. It is highly significant that her removal led to the immediate resignation of four other top officials who have served at the CDC for decades in some cases”
Yeah, but she will still vote with the Republicans when it comes to it. She's been flirting with rebellion for a decade or more as a means of conning people in a fairly liberal state to vote for her.
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
I think the way you’re applying corporation tax is wrong?
If your company earns £10k, you can
1) Pay £2500 corporation tax, pay yourself £7500 in dividends, attracting another £612 in tax (assuming you’re a standard rate taxpayer earning less than £42.5k elsewhere & this is your only dividend so you get £500 tax free), for a total of £3122 in tax & £6888 final take home income.
or
2) Pay yourself an extra £8695k in salary. Pay 20% income tax + 8% NI = £2434 plus 15% & employers NI, £1305. You pay no corporation tax because staff salaries don’t count towards company profits. Total tax paid is 3739 for a take home pay of £6260.
So you’re about £600 better off paying yourself a dividend, so long as you’re a lower rate income tax payer. If you’re a higher rate taxpayer, then Option 1 gets you 33% dividend tax, so you pay £4862 in taxes & take home £5138, whereas paying yourself a salary means paying £4985 in taxes (40% + 2% plus 15% employers NI) for a take home of £5043. So about £100 better off paying yourself a dividend,
Had two friends from my youth die this week. Age 56 and 57. Neither smoked or were overweight. One an ex-professional sportsman. Very sobering.
Last year I joined a Facebook group for a company I used to work at in the nineties. For nostalgia and to see if there’s anyone I knew on there just to,say hi.
Found out a woman, she was ten years younger than me, I shared an office with for a couple of years and she was very sweet, had sadly died in 2018 from a very aggressive cancer.
Awful.
I’m retired now. Enjoy your life, enjoy the time you have left. Value those close to you and just remember you only have one life and it’s not a dress rehearsal.
Had two friends from my youth die this week. Age 56 and 57. Neither smoked or were overweight. One an ex-professional sportsman. Very sobering.
None of us know what is coming. Commiserations.
Just be ready to meet your maker or your new incarnation when the knock comes.
And have one's will valid and up to date. If only out of consideration for your family and friends. It is no fun to deal with an intestate estate, least of all in Scotland.
“I am extremely alarmed at the firing of the CDC director…I see no basis for her firing. It is highly significant that her removal led to the immediate resignation of four other top officials who have served at the CDC for decades in some cases”
Just want to give a shout out to all of the Republican Senators who professed deep concern about vaccine science and public health and then voted to put literally the most famous anti-vaxxer in the world in charge of running America's health care system. Bravo you guys
Had two friends from my youth die this week. Age 56 and 57. Neither smoked or were overweight. One an ex-professional sportsman. Very sobering.
I was at the funeral of a good friend on Monday. He was 63. In fairness he smoked a lot but he was extremely fit and not overweight. Carpe diem.
Have been to two funerals this year, one guy I knew very well when we both lived in London. Didn't quite make 60, stomach cancer. Another took his own life in a beauty spot he used to like, 64 I think. All you can do is to live life.
The most important thing that will happen to YourParty for a long time over the next couple of years is about to happen in the sense that the Green leadership ballot closed today.
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
I think the way you’re applying corporation tax is wrong?
If your company earns £10k, you can
1) Pay £2500 corporation tax, pay yourself £7500 in dividends, attracting another £612 in tax (assuming you’re a standard rate taxpayer earning less than £42.5k elsewhere & this is your only dividend so you get £500 tax free), for a total of £3122 in tax & £6888 final take home income.
or
2) Pay yourself an extra £8695k in salary. Pay 20% income tax + 8% NI = £2434 plus 15% & employers NI, £1305. You pay no corporation tax because staff salaries don’t count towards company profits. Total tax paid is 3739 for a take home pay of £6260.
So you’re about £600 better off paying yourself a dividend, so long as you’re a lower rate income tax payer. If you’re a higher rate taxpayer, then Option 1 gets you 33% dividend tax, so you pay £4862 in taxes & take home £5138, whereas paying yourself a salary means paying £4985 in taxes (40% + 2% plus 15% employers NI) for a take home of £5043. So about £100 better off paying yourself a dividend,
Not much in it in the latter case frankly.
Anyone want to nitpick my numbers?
Not as much in it, but still better off in the latter case, while significantly better off in the former case. £6260 vs £6888 means you're a bit over 10% better off take home via the dividend route, which is quite a significant increase. £5043 v £5138 means a bit under 2% via the dividend route, which is still a reasonable sum of money but not as significant.
Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.
The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.
In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.
The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.
“Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.
“However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”
They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.
How do other european governments, under the same ECHR obligations, manage to house asylum seekers in tents rather than hotels?
In Ireland they basically ignore it when they are told that they're breaching the asylum seekers human rights.
Not sure that ignoring the law is something we want governments to be in the habit of doing.
"International law" is more guidelines than actual rules.
Implement domestic law, yes. International ones should be subservient to Parliamentary laws.
Government should change not break domestic laws, but international ones aren't subject to Parliamentary amendments which is why they should never be conflated with actual, domestic laws.
You been saying, for years, that international laws are guidelines rather than rules. But it's not really true. Even in the UK. Just because it was a phrase used in Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't make it gospel.
Yes, the UK adopts a dualist approach that means that domestic statute takes precedence over international treaties. 100% agree. However, treaties have always been persuasive (albeit not binding) authority, like decisions from courts at the same level are.
For example, if an Act of Parliament is ambiguous, courts must presume that Parliament intended it to comply with the UK’s international obligations (e.g. Salomon v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1967]) and in R v Lyons [2002] the HoL said treaties should influence judicial reasoning, albeit they stressed they cannot override clear domestic law.
But other countries don't adopt a dualist approach.
In the monist system, like South Africa and France, international law and domestic law form a single legal order, you can't distinguish between the two. Even in some dualist systems, like your beloved Australia, ratification of a treaty creates a “legitimate expectation” that decision-makers will act in accordance with it, unless there is clear contrary policy (Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995)).
So, to say international laws are just "guidelines" is not true. It's a massive oversimplification. They're far more than that, even in dualist systems.
What do you think a guideline is?
To act in accordance unless there is clear, contrary policy is pretty much the meaning of a guideline.
As opposed to an actual rule, whereby you can't break the rule even if there is a clear, contrary policy.
The problem is that many people here and in power fetishise (hat tip kle4) international laws into being actual laws that the government is forbidden to break, even if they have or the voters want a clear, contrary policy.
And you're taking the piss if you think France has a single legal order whereby international laws are treated with the same respect as French laws. If French policy and international law conflict, then France 100% puts its own laws first - as it should.
Mate, I don’t like to pull an argument from authority, but I’m a qualified lawyer with a masters degree in international labour law who has lived and worked in Paris. I wrote my dissertation on comparative employment law in France, the U.K., Japan and the United States with a focus on implementation of the ILO conventions. I have litigated cross border disputes in France and elsewhere. I’ve actually been, many times, in French courtrooms while cases involving international law have been heard.
I don’t think, I know, and I have knowledge and experience in these matters you don’t. If you have evidence to back your assertions and contradict mine then please post them, as I had the courtesy to do for you, rather than resorting to crude ad hominems and evidence free assertions. Otherwise get back in your box.
France certainly has employment laws that massively favour the worker. Any attempt to reduce these is met with fierce resistance; finding hotels & housing for migrants near Calais ? Not so much.
I believe that France, like Spain has increasing numbers of jobs outside the protections. You hear a lot of stuff from Spanish grads who can only get factory jobs on some variation on a zero hours contract with no benefits.
That's correct: in most of these places there are two markets - protected and unprotected jobs. Like rent controlled apartments, the distinction is deeply fucked up. But it does mean that -often- the barriers to employment are not as severe as they appear.
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
I think the way you’re applying corporation tax is wrong?
If your company earns £10k, you can
1) Pay £2500 corporation tax, pay yourself £7500 in dividends, attracting another £612 in tax (assuming you’re a standard rate taxpayer earning less than £42.5k elsewhere & this is your only dividend so you get £500 tax free), for a total of £3122 in tax & £6888 final take home income.
or
2) Pay yourself an extra £8695k in salary. Pay 20% income tax + 8% NI = £2434 plus 15% & employers NI, £1305. You pay no corporation tax because staff salaries don’t count towards company profits. Total tax paid is 3739 for a take home pay of £6260.
So you’re about £600 better off paying yourself a dividend, so long as you’re a lower rate income tax payer. If you’re a higher rate taxpayer, then Option 1 gets you 33% dividend tax, so you pay £4862 in taxes & take home £5138, whereas paying yourself a salary means paying £4985 in taxes (40% + 2% plus 15% employers NI) for a take home of £5043. So about £100 better off paying yourself a dividend,
Not much in it in the latter case frankly.
Anyone want to nitpick my numbers?
Not as much in it, but still better off in the latter case, while significantly better off in the former case. £6260 vs £6888 means you're a bit over 10% better off take home via the dividend route, which is quite a significant increase. £5043 v £5138 means a bit under 2% via the dividend route, which is still a reasonable sum of money but not as significant.
The most important thing tax wise for receiving a lump sum like this is the ability to use a limited company to spread the payments over a number of years. £300k in income all at once costs you almost two thirds of your income in taxes. If you can keep the money in the company & pay it out as a dividends over the next decade or so, especially in fallow years when you don’t earn much elsewhere, then you can pay a significantly lower rate overall. You can also just keep the cash in the company & get lower rates when you wind it up as Malmesbury points out.
I had a very relaxing summer and can't recall witnessing any aggro anywhere. I still can't quite decide if the elements of the British Right who are claiming the country is literally ablaze in civil war actually believe it, or they merely have some American market to sell to.
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
I think the way you’re applying corporation tax is wrong?
If your company earns £10k, you can
1) Pay £2500 corporation tax, pay yourself £7500 in dividends, attracting another £612 in tax (assuming you’re a standard rate taxpayer earning less than £42.5k elsewhere & this is your only dividend so you get £500 tax free), for a total of £3122 in tax & £6888 final take home income.
or
2) Pay yourself an extra £8695k in salary. Pay 20% income tax + 8% NI = £2434 plus 15% & employers NI, £1305. You pay no corporation tax because staff salaries don’t count towards company profits. Total tax paid is 3739 for a take home pay of £6260.
So you’re about £600 better off paying yourself a dividend, so long as you’re a lower rate income tax payer. If you’re a higher rate taxpayer, then Option 1 gets you 33% dividend tax, so you pay £4862 in taxes & take home £5138, whereas paying yourself a salary means paying £4985 in taxes (40% + 2% plus 15% employers NI) for a take home of £5043. So about £100 better off paying yourself a dividend,
Not much in it in the latter case frankly.
Anyone want to nitpick my numbers?
Not as much in it, but still better off in the latter case, while significantly better off in the former case. £6260 vs £6888 means you're a bit over 10% better off take home via the dividend route, which is quite a significant increase. £5043 v £5138 means a bit under 2% via the dividend route, which is still a reasonable sum of money but not as significant.
The most important thing tax wise for receiving a lump sum like this is the ability to use a limited company to spread the payments over a number of years. £300k in income all at once costs you almost two thirds of your income in taxes. If you can keep the money in the company & pay it out as a dividends over the next decade or so, especially in fallow years when you don’t earn much elsewhere, then you can pay a significantly lower rate overall. You can also just keep the cash in the company & get lower rates when you wind it up as Malmesbury points out.
Also it gives you the option to maximise tax allowances over a number of years with your spouse too, if you're that way inclined.
If someone, lets hypothetically call them Mr Smith, gets a £300k payment then that can go the Mr and Mrs Smith corporation and both Mr and Mrs Smith can claim £50k per annum for years making full use of the basic allowance without paying any higher rate allowance.
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
I think the way you’re applying corporation tax is wrong?
If your company earns £10k, you can
1) Pay £2500 corporation tax, pay yourself £7500 in dividends, attracting another £612 in tax (assuming you’re a standard rate taxpayer earning less than £42.5k elsewhere & this is your only dividend so you get £500 tax free), for a total of £3122 in tax & £6888 final take home income.
or
2) Pay yourself an extra £8695k in salary. Pay 20% income tax + 8% NI = £2434 plus 15% & employers NI, £1305. You pay no corporation tax because staff salaries don’t count towards company profits. Total tax paid is 3739 for a take home pay of £6260.
So you’re about £600 better off paying yourself a dividend, so long as you’re a lower rate income tax payer. If you’re a higher rate taxpayer, then Option 1 gets you 33% dividend tax, so you pay £4862 in taxes & take home £5138, whereas paying yourself a salary means paying £4985 in taxes (40% + 2% plus 15% employers NI) for a take home of £5043. So about £100 better off paying yourself a dividend,
Not much in it in the latter case frankly.
Anyone want to nitpick my numbers?
Not as much in it, but still better off in the latter case, while significantly better off in the former case. £6260 vs £6888 means you're a bit over 10% better off take home via the dividend route, which is quite a significant increase. £5043 v £5138 means a bit under 2% via the dividend route, which is still a reasonable sum of money but not as significant.
The most important thing tax wise for receiving a lump sum like this is the ability to use a limited company to spread the payments over a number of years. £300k in income all at once costs you almost two thirds of your income in taxes. If you can keep the money in the company & pay it out as a dividends over the next decade or so, especially in fallow years when you don’t earn much elsewhere, then you can pay a significantly lower rate overall. You can also just keep the cash in the company & get lower rates when you wind it up as Malmesbury points out.
Also it gives you the option to maximise tax allowances over a number of years with your spouse too, if you're that way inclined.
If someone, lets hypothetically call them Mr Smith, gets a £300k payment then that can go the Mr and Mrs Smith corporation and both Mr and Mrs Smith can claim £50k per annum for years making full use of the basic allowance without paying any higher rate allowance.
I had a very relaxing summer and can't recall witnessing any aggro anywhere. I still can't quite decide if the elements of the British Right who are claiming the country is literally ablaze in civil war actually believe it, or they merely have some American market to sell to.
There is a colour of journalism, midway between orange and green, which rather enjoys trying to make the news.
"Kemi Badenoch: I’d go further than Farage and deport women and children Tory leader says ‘of course’ all illegal migrants would be removed, after Reform UK leader rows back"
She’s lucky her comments didn’t get much media attention, she’s so desperate to appear even tougher than Reform, what next she’ll personally turn up to the next stoning in Kabul ! Shame her family hadn’t been deported then we wouldn’t have to put up with her here! She really is vile .
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
I think the way you’re applying corporation tax is wrong?
If your company earns £10k, you can
1) Pay £2500 corporation tax, pay yourself £7500 in dividends, attracting another £612 in tax (assuming you’re a standard rate taxpayer earning less than £42.5k elsewhere & this is your only dividend so you get £500 tax free), for a total of £3122 in tax & £6888 final take home income.
or
2) Pay yourself an extra £8695k in salary. Pay 20% income tax + 8% NI = £2434 plus 15% & employers NI, £1305. You pay no corporation tax because staff salaries don’t count towards company profits. Total tax paid is 3739 for a take home pay of £6260.
So you’re about £600 better off paying yourself a dividend, so long as you’re a lower rate income tax payer. If you’re a higher rate taxpayer, then Option 1 gets you 33% dividend tax, so you pay £4862 in taxes & take home £5138, whereas paying yourself a salary means paying £4985 in taxes (40% + 2% plus 15% employers NI) for a take home of £5043. So about £100 better off paying yourself a dividend,
Not much in it in the latter case frankly.
Anyone want to nitpick my numbers?
Not as much in it, but still better off in the latter case, while significantly better off in the former case. £6260 vs £6888 means you're a bit over 10% better off take home via the dividend route, which is quite a significant increase. £5043 v £5138 means a bit under 2% via the dividend route, which is still a reasonable sum of money but not as significant.
The most important thing tax wise for receiving a lump sum like this is the ability to use a limited company to spread the payments over a number of years. £300k in income all at once costs you almost two thirds of your income in taxes. If you can keep the money in the company & pay it out as a dividends over the next decade or so, especially in fallow years when you don’t earn much elsewhere, then you can pay a significantly lower rate overall. You can also just keep the cash in the company & get lower rates when you wind it up as Malmesbury points out.
Also it gives you the option to maximise tax allowances over a number of years with your spouse too, if you're that way inclined.
If someone, lets hypothetically call them Mr Smith, gets a £300k payment then that can go the Mr and Mrs Smith corporation and both Mr and Mrs Smith can claim £50k per annum for years making full use of the basic allowance without paying any higher rate allowance.
Yes incorporation is usually a good idea tax-wise. Though not always: if you’re stupid enough as a UK resident to own a French property through an SCI, well congratulations you’ve just condemned yourself to a 69%+ effective tax rate.
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
I had a very relaxing summer and can't recall witnessing any aggro anywhere. I still can't quite decide if the elements of the British Right who are claiming the country is literally ablaze in civil war actually believe it, or they merely have some American market to sell to.
There is a colour of journalism, midway between orange and green, which rather enjoys trying to make the news.
Always has been, probably always will be.
Yep. And to answer the original question, I suspect it’s mainly to entertain the US audience.
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
Not true at all, the car itself is a shield that protects the inhabitants of a car which cyclists lack. Also cyclists also lack air bags etc too.
Car inhabitants are far, far safer than cyclists are, and at far less risk of head injury, yet they're the ones who face the mandate on what to wear, in this instance seat belts.
"Kemi Badenoch: I’d go further than Farage and deport women and children Tory leader says ‘of course’ all illegal migrants would be removed, after Reform UK leader rows back"
She’s lucky her comments didn’t get much media attention, she’s so desperate to appear even tougher than Reform, what next she’ll personally turn up to the next stoning in Kabul ! Shame her family hadn’t been deported then we wouldn’t have to put up with her here! She really is vile .
It's a hard one. The Taliban hate women, but would happily murder a man on return too. The answer, difficult though it is, is to stop both arriving in the first place.
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
EXCLUSIVE: Labour MSP Colin Smyth "put secret camera in parliament toilet".
The Daily Record can reveal that Smyth, who has been suspended from the party after being charged in connection with possession of indecent images, also faces charges of placing a camera in a toilet at the Scottish Parliament building.
Switch on Newsnight and the first thing I hear, once again, is the phrase "The government has an obligation to house the asylum seekers". What about all the British people sleeping rough? How come the priority goes to people who've illegally come to this country over them.
"Kemi Badenoch: I’d go further than Farage and deport women and children Tory leader says ‘of course’ all illegal migrants would be removed, after Reform UK leader rows back"
She’s lucky her comments didn’t get much media attention, she’s so desperate to appear even tougher than Reform, what next she’ll personally turn up to the next stoning in Kabul ! Shame her family hadn’t been deported then we wouldn’t have to put up with her here! She really is vile .
It's a hard one. The Taliban hate women, but would happily murder a man on return too. The answer, difficult though it is, is to stop both arriving in the first place.
Women and children will always be a much more sensitive issue . It’s the single male boat arrivals which seem the bigger issue for people . Badenoch is effectively saying she’ll send back women to the Taliban regardless of what could happen to them. Does she ever engage her brain !
Switch on Newsnight and the first thing I hear, once again, is the phrase "The government has an obligation to house the asylum seekers". What about all the British people sleeping rough? How come the priority goes to people who've illegally come to this country over them.
A cause for the middle class media types to radiate their worthiness on with some white knighting for added good measure.
"Kemi Badenoch: I’d go further than Farage and deport women and children Tory leader says ‘of course’ all illegal migrants would be removed, after Reform UK leader rows back"
She’s lucky her comments didn’t get much media attention, she’s so desperate to appear even tougher than Reform, what next she’ll personally turn up to the next stoning in Kabul ! Shame her family hadn’t been deported then we wouldn’t have to put up with her here! She really is vile .
It's a hard one. The Taliban hate women, but would happily murder a man on return too. The answer, difficult though it is, is to stop both arriving in the first place.
Women and children will always be a much more sensitive issue . It’s the single male boat arrivals which seem the bigger issue for people . Badenoch is effectively saying she’ll send back women to the Taliban regardless of what could happen to them. Does she ever engage her brain !
She's stuck: outflank Reform or ignore them. No middle ground.
Switch on Newsnight and the first thing I hear, once again, is the phrase "The government has an obligation to house the asylum seekers". What about all the British people sleeping rough? How come the priority goes to people who've illegally come to this country over them.
Not defending the government (that would clearly be a sign of madness), but most homeless are homeless in the UK because they find the restrictions from hostels (like no drink or drugs) impossible to live with.
Switch on Newsnight and the first thing I hear, once again, is the phrase "The government has an obligation to house the asylum seekers". What about all the British people sleeping rough? How come the priority goes to people who've illegally come to this country over them.
It depends on why they are homeless. The government does have a statutory duty to unintentionally homeless people too.
Also, when someone claims asylum they are no longer here illegally. They have legal status pending the outcome of their application, hence the importance of swift assessment.
Switch on Newsnight and the first thing I hear, once again, is the phrase "The government has an obligation to house the asylum seekers". What about all the British people sleeping rough? How come the priority goes to people who've illegally come to this country over them.
Not defending the government (that would clearly be a sign of madness), but most homeless are homeless in the UK because they find the restrictions from hostels (like no drink or drugs) impossible to live with.
True, though a higher percentage were housed during Covid. So we managed in that crisis.
Switch on Newsnight and the first thing I hear, once again, is the phrase "The government has an obligation to house the asylum seekers". What about all the British people sleeping rough? How come the priority goes to people who've illegally come to this country over them.
It depends on why they are homeless. The government does have a statutory duty to unintentionally homeless people too.
Also, when someone claims asylum they are no longer here illegally. They have legal status pending the outcome of their application, hence the importance of swift assessment.
But absent return agreements for some countries, we have obligations even to those whom we reject for asylum.
"Kemi Badenoch: I’d go further than Farage and deport women and children Tory leader says ‘of course’ all illegal migrants would be removed, after Reform UK leader rows back"
She’s lucky her comments didn’t get much media attention, she’s so desperate to appear even tougher than Reform, what next she’ll personally turn up to the next stoning in Kabul ! Shame her family hadn’t been deported then we wouldn’t have to put up with her here! She really is vile .
It's a hard one. The Taliban hate women, but would happily murder a man on return too. The answer, difficult though it is, is to stop both arriving in the first place.
Women and children will always be a much more sensitive issue . It’s the single male boat arrivals which seem the bigger issue for people . Badenoch is effectively saying she’ll send back women to the Taliban regardless of what could happen to them. Does she ever engage her brain !
She's stuck: outflank Reform or ignore them. No middle ground.
Even Reform rowed back on women and children . A maximalist position often ends up causing more problems .
"Kemi Badenoch: I’d go further than Farage and deport women and children Tory leader says ‘of course’ all illegal migrants would be removed, after Reform UK leader rows back"
She’s lucky her comments didn’t get much media attention, she’s so desperate to appear even tougher than Reform, what next she’ll personally turn up to the next stoning in Kabul ! Shame her family hadn’t been deported then we wouldn’t have to put up with her here! She really is vile .
It's a hard one. The Taliban hate women, but would happily murder a man on return too. The answer, difficult though it is, is to stop both arriving in the first place.
Women and children will always be a much more sensitive issue . It’s the single male boat arrivals which seem the bigger issue for people . Badenoch is effectively saying she’ll send back women to the Taliban regardless of what could happen to them. Does she ever engage her brain !
She's stuck: outflank Reform or ignore them. No middle ground.
She’s in an impossible situation. She’ll never be able to outflank Reform. If she ignores them, she’ll be replaced by Jenrick.
Switch on Newsnight and the first thing I hear, once again, is the phrase "The government has an obligation to house the asylum seekers". What about all the British people sleeping rough? How come the priority goes to people who've illegally come to this country over them.
It depends on why they are homeless. The government does have a statutory duty to unintentionally homeless people too.
Also, when someone claims asylum they are no longer here illegally. They have legal status pending the outcome of their application, hence the importance of swift assessment.
But absent return agreements for some countries, we have obligations even to those whom we reject for asylum.
Once all appeals are exhausted all state aid ceases with a few exceptions such as dependent children, or those making genuine efforts to leave the country.
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Cycle helmets are only really designed for a fall from the bike, they are not designed for an impact with a moving vehicle. It's only extremely stupid motor-normative people who try to attribute blame to the cyclist for not wearing a helmet when they've been hit by a driver in a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph. Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
"The populist right seems to be willing on conflict and unrest as it fuels the immigration and asylum panic, demonising every non-white arrival as a predatory sex offender. Signs of defiance now include the painting of St George’s crosses on mini-roundabouts and hanging flags from lampposts."
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
It's also bizarre that cyclists are not required to wear any kind of helmet when moped riders are obliged to wear an approved safety helmet and can be prosecuted if they don't.
Mopeds are legally limited to 28mph, which is a speed I suspect all but the unfittest cyclist exceeds regularly.
"Kemi Badenoch: I’d go further than Farage and deport women and children Tory leader says ‘of course’ all illegal migrants would be removed, after Reform UK leader rows back"
She’s lucky her comments didn’t get much media attention, she’s so desperate to appear even tougher than Reform, what next she’ll personally turn up to the next stoning in Kabul ! Shame her family hadn’t been deported then we wouldn’t have to put up with her here! She really is vile .
It's a hard one. The Taliban hate women, but would happily murder a man on return too. The answer, difficult though it is, is to stop both arriving in the first place.
Women and children will always be a much more sensitive issue . It’s the single male boat arrivals which seem the bigger issue for people . Badenoch is effectively saying she’ll send back women to the Taliban regardless of what could happen to them. Does she ever engage her brain !
She's stuck: outflank Reform or ignore them. No middle ground.
She’s in an impossible situation. She’ll never be able to outflank Reform. If she ignores them, she’ll be replaced by Jenrick.
I wonder right now if anyone at Tory HQ sees Reform as an existential threat to the party's long term future, or do they think Ref UK will burn out before or after the next UK election?
It's a very risky game to play if they expect former Tory voters to move over to Reform then move back into the Tory column if/when Reform fail.
Eventually there will come a time when the Conservative party lose so many seats they start to back PR for UK elections. They aren't at that stage yet, but a further decline in seats, say to 50 or below could signal the end of the party. They could back PR at Westminster votes before Labour
"The populist right seems to be willing on conflict and unrest as it fuels the immigration and asylum panic, demonising every non-white arrival as a predatory sex offender. Signs of defiance now include the painting of St George’s crosses on mini-roundabouts and hanging flags from lampposts."
Is there anyone left in UK arguing that mass migration hasn't gone too far?
Nicola Sturgeon is under pressure to explain why she is exploiting a loophole to avoid the higher rates of income tax imposed on Scottish workers by the SNP.
The former first minister has updated her register of interests at Holyrood to state that she withdrew £20,000 from her company on June 30 this year.
She set up Nicola Sturgeon Ltd to handle her non-MSP earnings, including a £300,000 advance from the publisher of her recent memoir, Frankly.
But she took the payment in the form of a dividend, meaning that the money was not liable for the higher rates of income tax she and her successors as SNP first minister have levied on Scots’ wages.
I don't have access to the Torygraph but I am not really understanding the "tax loophole". Obviously getting this paid as dividends will save NI which would have had to have been paid if it was taken as earnings (which it is) but that is a consequence of the stupidity by which unearned income is taxed less than earned income. But IT applies to all earnings, whether earned or unearned. Unless she is trying to claim that this payment was made in England maybe? But she is still Scottish resident, at least for the time being.
It's the hypocrisy angle that's causing her grief (and her successors)
Experts calculated that the move would have saved Ms Sturgeon £1,209.60 compared with being paid £10,000 as a salary, which would have been liable for Scottish income tax.
In April, Craig Hoy, the Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary, branded the move “hypocrisy”.
Although she has not done anything illegal, Ms Sturgeon and her successors, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, have argued there is a “social contract” in Scotland.
They have argued that better-off workers should pay more income tax in return for Scots receiving “free” benefits from the state, such as prescriptions and university tuition.
In England at least, the saving on NI and the lower rate of income tax on dividends is almost exactly balanced out by the fact that dividends don't reduce corporation tax whereas salaries do. The way to reduce the overall tax take on this sort of personal company is to find a way to justify rolling up the profits and eventually just paying CGT on them on a wind up, ideally claiming entrepreneur relief.
I don't think that's right.
Basic Rate example £10,000 paid via dividends Subject to 8.75% dividend tax = £875 Total tax £875
£10,000 paid via salary Subject to 20% tax = £2,000 Subject to 8% Employees NICs = £800 Subject to 15% Employer NICs = £1,500 Total tax £4300 Subtract 25% corporation tax of £2500 Net total tax £1800
So its £875 versus £1800 - nearly twice as much tax if done on the books as salary.
A massive distortion to encourage people off the PAYE books. Please feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake.
I think the way you’re applying corporation tax is wrong?
If your company earns £10k, you can
1) Pay £2500 corporation tax, pay yourself £7500 in dividends, attracting another £612 in tax (assuming you’re a standard rate taxpayer earning less than £42.5k elsewhere & this is your only dividend so you get £500 tax free), for a total of £3122 in tax & £6888 final take home income.
or
2) Pay yourself an extra £8695k in salary. Pay 20% income tax + 8% NI = £2434 plus 15% & employers NI, £1305. You pay no corporation tax because staff salaries don’t count towards company profits. Total tax paid is 3739 for a take home pay of £6260.
So you’re about £600 better off paying yourself a dividend, so long as you’re a lower rate income tax payer. If you’re a higher rate taxpayer, then Option 1 gets you 33% dividend tax, so you pay £4862 in taxes & take home £5138, whereas paying yourself a salary means paying £4985 in taxes (40% + 2% plus 15% employers NI) for a take home of £5043. So about £100 better off paying yourself a dividend,
Not much in it in the latter case frankly.
Anyone want to nitpick my numbers?
Not as much in it, but still better off in the latter case, while significantly better off in the former case. £6260 vs £6888 means you're a bit over 10% better off take home via the dividend route, which is quite a significant increase. £5043 v £5138 means a bit under 2% via the dividend route, which is still a reasonable sum of money but not as significant.
The most important thing tax wise for receiving a lump sum like this is the ability to use a limited company to spread the payments over a number of years. £300k in income all at once costs you almost two thirds of your income in taxes. If you can keep the money in the company & pay it out as a dividends over the next decade or so, especially in fallow years when you don’t earn much elsewhere, then you can pay a significantly lower rate overall. You can also just keep the cash in the company & get lower rates when you wind it up as Malmesbury points out.
Take home for £300k gross PAYE is £160k in Scotland, so 46% tax, which is not close to 2/3. Via a ltd you could make employer SIPP contributions and take it over a longer period but you're not saving a huge amount in tax and you can't spend the money you've left in the company.
Switch on Newsnight and the first thing I hear, once again, is the phrase "The government has an obligation to house the asylum seekers". What about all the British people sleeping rough? How come the priority goes to people who've illegally come to this country over them.
Not defending the government (that would clearly be a sign of madness), but most homeless are homeless in the UK because they find the restrictions from hostels (like no drink or drugs) impossible to live with.
True, though a higher percentage were housed during Covid. So we managed in that crisis.
Not really.
According to homeless charities, homelessness actually increased, significantly, during Covid.
In the short-term rough sleeping initially fell, as people who would have been rough sleeping were put in to B&Bs and other accommodations (whom of course normally would take other visitors but couldn't due to lockdown).
In the longer-term over Covid the number of people suffering from homelessness increased significantly. Initially forms of homelessness other than rough sleeping rose, then rough sleeping rose too, not just back to but beyond the starting point.
By the end of 2020 record numbers of people were homeless, and rough sleeping was higher than it was pre-Covid. Despite being back in lockdown by then and the Covid Everyone In program still being in force.
Things that would make modern life better: proper enforcement of ebike laws.
(This is true of both the US and the UK.)
I would also like to see it being a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets.
As a liberal I dislike the state telling people what to do.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
The same justifications used for making cyclists wear cycle helmets also apply to car drivers & passengers, for whom head injuries are a significant cause of serious long term injuries and death in vehicle crashes.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines".
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Cycle helmets are only really designed for a fall from the bike, they are not designed for an impact with a moving vehicle. It's only extremely stupid motor-normative people who try to attribute blame to the cyclist for not wearing a helmet when they've been hit by a driver in a 2 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph. Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
There's a reason wearing a helmet is unusual in the Netherlands, Denmark etc. Interactions with vehicles are much reduced. My metrics for an effective cycle infrastructure are 50:50 gender balance and few helmets.
The exception is people like Dura_Ace zipping along at high speed. Then you do need a helmet regardless.
Switch on Newsnight and the first thing I hear, once again, is the phrase "The government has an obligation to house the asylum seekers". What about all the British people sleeping rough? How come the priority goes to people who've illegally come to this country over them.
It depends on why they are homeless. The government does have a statutory duty to unintentionally homeless people too.
Also, when someone claims asylum they are no longer here illegally. They have legal status pending the outcome of their application, hence the importance of swift assessment.
But absent return agreements for some countries, we have obligations even to those whom we reject for asylum.
Once all appeals are exhausted all state aid ceases with a few exceptions such as dependent children, or those making genuine efforts to leave the country.
Apparently there is something called Section 4 support:
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
It's also bizarre that cyclists are not required to wear any kind of helmet when moped riders are obliged to wear an approved safety helmet and can be prosecuted if they don't.
Mopeds are legally limited to 28mph, which is a speed I suspect all but the unfittest cyclist exceeds regularly.
Perhaps if there's a steep downhill. Tour de France averages 42km/hr (25mph), they're quite fit, probably use PED and they take turns on the front. You should try cycling sometime, it'll improve your driving
"The populist right seems to be willing on conflict and unrest as it fuels the immigration and asylum panic, demonising every non-white arrival as a predatory sex offender. Signs of defiance now include the painting of St George’s crosses on mini-roundabouts and hanging flags from lampposts."
Is there anyone left in UK arguing that mass migration hasn't gone too far?
I mean it was net 900K+ under the Boris Wave.
Does anyone think that is sustainable?
How do we reconcile the polling theory that brexit voters regret their vote with the popularity of Reform? Surely everyone associates Farage with brexit? So what gives?
The notion that we housed people and ended homelessness during Covid is a falsehood that I've seen many times on this site. Homeless charities say the exact opposite.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
It's also bizarre that cyclists are not required to wear any kind of helmet when moped riders are obliged to wear an approved safety helmet and can be prosecuted if they don't.
Mopeds are legally limited to 28mph, which is a speed I suspect all but the unfittest cyclist exceeds regularly.
28mph is almost impossible to achieve except for a pro level athlete or down a steep hill. I rarely get anywhere near that on my commutes.
My average this morning was 10mph and a max of 17mph. Difficult to drink your coffee at anything faster, though I still overtook 30+ cars.
"The populist right seems to be willing on conflict and unrest as it fuels the immigration and asylum panic, demonising every non-white arrival as a predatory sex offender. Signs of defiance now include the painting of St George’s crosses on mini-roundabouts and hanging flags from lampposts."
Is there anyone left in UK arguing that mass migration hasn't gone too far?
I mean it was net 900K+ under the Boris Wave.
Does anyone think that is sustainable?
How do we reconcile the polling theory that brexit voters regret their vote with the popularity of Reform? Surely everyone associates Farage with brexit? So what gives?
Voters hold what seem to be contradictory ideas in their heads.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
It's also bizarre that cyclists are not required to wear any kind of helmet when moped riders are obliged to wear an approved safety helmet and can be prosecuted if they don't.
Mopeds are legally limited to 28mph, which is a speed I suspect all but the unfittest cyclist exceeds regularly.
I strongly dislike the feeling of wearing a helmet when cycling. I hope it isn't made compulsory. In the Netherlands almost no-one wears one I believe.
"The populist right seems to be willing on conflict and unrest as it fuels the immigration and asylum panic, demonising every non-white arrival as a predatory sex offender. Signs of defiance now include the painting of St George’s crosses on mini-roundabouts and hanging flags from lampposts."
Is there anyone left in UK arguing that mass migration hasn't gone too far?
I mean it was net 900K+ under the Boris Wave.
Does anyone think that is sustainable?
How do we reconcile the polling theory that brexit voters regret their vote with the popularity of Reform? Surely everyone associates Farage with brexit? So what gives?
That list of Brexit voters who regret their vote:
Roger Scott xP Roger Sir Ed Davey Roger Scott xP Roger Rochdale Pioneers
The fact that only one of them actually voted Brexit is neither here nor there.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0BtN6aRxkg
'Sean Connery appeared as a mystery guest on "What's My Line?"'
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UtF4sYya-0c
So £10,000 is pre tax income - income tax at 19% is £810
+ dividend tax at £60.75
So that £10,000 provides £749.25 of post tax income
So £10,000 is pre tax income - income tax at 19% is £810
+ dividend tax at £60.75
So that £10,000 provides £749.25 of post tax income
So £10,000 is pre tax income - income tax at 19% is £810
+ dividend tax at £60.75
So that £10,000 provides £749.25 of post tax income
In its first interview since announcing the price hike, Eli Lilly’s Medical Associate Vice President, Emily Pegg, told ITV News Health Correspondent Rebecca Barry the drug’s slow NHS rollout increases the risk of people turning to the black market."
I admit I was wrong: I thought the idea that Trump's actions would make companies increase prices worldwide was fanciful and contra how markets operate. After all, why would the price be lower than achievable in that market in the first place? Turns out, sometimes, extreme political pressure can do just that.
Presumably that means less profit in those markets - otherwise why not price that way in the first place. But appeasing Trump must be worth it...
Jesus.
That's worse than LA.
No idea on the quality of the former but the latter is parochial lowbrow rubbish which if it ceased to exist would make no one’s life worse except the low wattage careerists it employs. As one unionist suggests, it only has one real function.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/yes-of-course-the-bbc-is-biased-against-scottish-nationalists/
I agree with Peter Hitchens on something.
OK, if you want examples of French laws as opposed to French executive action explicitly overriding international law then here's a few more examples:
In both 1993 and 2003 France passed laws that explicitly provided that asylum seekers and irregular migrants could be expelled or detained notwithstanding protections granced under the ECHR.
The nuclear testing one that I mentioned earlier was again one were French law was used to override international law. France withdrew from ICJ compulsory jurisdiction and French laws were passed explicitly authorising continued testing despite international law. Again, laws not executive action.
The GMO one mentioned earlier was again done via French legislation prohibiting GMO products despite EU authorisation and despite the ECJ's insistince that member states could not unilaterally ban them. Again, law passed in France, not executive action.
The British beef example was initially done via executive action, but was subsequently reinforced through the use of decrees with legal force - law, not just executive action. Albeit from what I've read that's equivalent to the use of EG Statutory Instruments etc as opposed to an outright law, but still has legal force.
France passed laws violating with EU free movement of services requiring French digital data to be stored locally and imposing requirements beyond the EU's GDPR in violation of EU rules and WTO rules. Again, law, not executive action.
I'm not insulting you, despite your offensive language against me. If I'm wrong with these examples, please let me know how, but I've heard many lawyers before (including on this site) complain about France overriding international law when it suits her interests - both via their own laws (examples given) and executive action (examples given).
I'm giving examples, not insults. I'd appreciate if you can do the same, but if you want to just hurl insults again, then I can't stop you.
You could do the inverse and count the corporation tax on the dividend route, but then no reduction on the salary route, and either way the calculation should end the same.
Mr Palmer ex MP of these pages appears to be reserving judgement and would possibly switch allegiance. There are no doubt many in Parliament that might do the same if Labour starts consistently polling in 5th place nationally over the next year (some of whom might plausibly defect to Reform or even the SNP I suppose).
Is this a 20–1 shot? I dunno. But it doesn’t sound completely impossible, especially if there’s a gilt strike on top of the wider dissatisfaction.
Quite sobering.
20-1 is not appealing, but as you note, there are circumstances where it is possible.
One of the victims was a little 2-year-old girl.
Just think about the scale of this nightmare—of the crime Russia is committing.
A child born in Ukraine during this war was killed by Russia’s hand in the very same war.
She lived her entire short life under attack and died at the hands of a Russian executioner.
https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1961136945498583058
But that's longer odds than 20-1 while Ms Sultana and the Magic Grandpa are in charge.
https://x.com/btimberley/status/1961067152712093963?s=61
Susan Collins notices the whole fucking republic is on fire.
Finally.
Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
Republican Sen. Susan Collins:
“I am extremely alarmed at the firing of the CDC director…I see no basis for her firing. It is highly significant that her removal led to the immediate resignation of four other top officials who have served at the CDC for decades in some cases”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1961152115356660078
Age 56 and 57.
Neither smoked or were overweight. One an ex-professional sportsman.
Very sobering.
https://www.twz.com/land/tactical-ballistic-missile-sought-by-united-kingdom
We last fielded such a weapon in the Cold War.
Given Russia's actions in Ukraine, there's a very strong case for it.
Just want to give a shout out to all of the Republican Senators who professed deep concern about vaccine science and public health and then voted to put literally the most famous anti-vaxxer in the world in charge of running America's health care system. Bravo you guys
https://x.com/Fritschner/status/1960840842702176402
Sleep well folks...
People still debate if he was dead for his entire tenure. Or just functionally dead. Or resting. Or pining for the fjords.
Just be ready to meet your maker or your new incarnation when the knock comes.
So the government actually pays you 15.5%
If your company earns £10k, you can
1) Pay £2500 corporation tax, pay yourself £7500 in dividends, attracting another £612 in tax (assuming you’re a standard rate taxpayer earning less than £42.5k elsewhere & this is your only dividend so you get £500 tax free), for a total of £3122 in tax & £6888 final take home income.
or
2) Pay yourself an extra £8695k in salary. Pay 20% income tax + 8% NI = £2434 plus 15% & employers NI, £1305. You pay no corporation tax because staff salaries don’t count towards company profits. Total tax paid is 3739 for a take home pay of £6260.
So you’re about £600 better off paying yourself a dividend, so long as you’re a lower rate income tax payer. If you’re a higher rate taxpayer, then Option 1 gets you 33% dividend tax, so you pay £4862 in taxes & take home £5138, whereas paying yourself a salary means paying £4985 in taxes (40% + 2% plus 15% employers NI) for a take home of £5043. So about £100 better off paying yourself a dividend,
Not much in it in the latter case frankly.
Anyone want to nitpick my numbers?
Found out a woman, she was ten years younger than me, I shared an office with for a couple of years and she was very sweet, had sadly died in 2018 from a very aggressive cancer.
Awful.
I’m retired now. Enjoy your life, enjoy the time you have left. Value those close to you and just remember you only have one life and it’s not a dress rehearsal.
What a set of spineless no marks.
There are molluscs with more sense of determined purpose in the world.
The ‘sensible’ centrists are chin-stroking while Britain burns.
Gareth Roberts
28th August 2025"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/08/28/the-infuriatingly-smug-complacency-of-the-news-agents/
If someone, lets hypothetically call them Mr Smith, gets a £300k payment then that can go the Mr and Mrs Smith corporation and both Mr and Mrs Smith can claim £50k per annum for years making full use of the basic allowance without paying any higher rate allowance.
Always has been, probably always will be.
As a pragmatist I see it as the same as a seat belt law.
I see zero reason why seat belts should be a legal requirement but helmets are not.
Anyone who fails to wear a helmet and dies on a bike should be considered a Darwin Award winner every bit as much as someone without a seatbelt.
Bastards.
Would you also advocate for everyone in a car to wear a motorbike style helmet? I think consistency goes both ways!
Car inhabitants are far, far safer than cyclists are, and at far less risk of head injury, yet they're the ones who face the mandate on what to wear, in this instance seat belts.
A certain type of person focuses a huge amount of energy on achieving some kind of pretty spurious consistency between rather dissimilar situations, to the almost total exclusion of what's achievable and kind of works... which is ultimately infinitely more important.
Green candidate Polanski on Newsnight:
"I want to see workers having public sector jobs that are well paid, treated with dignity and get sick pay etc"
The implication was everyone would have these jobs.
No wonder there is talk of a Polanski-Sultana alliance.
Also, when someone claims asylum they are no longer here illegally. They have legal status pending the outcome of their application, hence the importance of swift assessment.
Seatbelts on the other hand stop you smashing yourself into the steering wheel or through the windscreen. Feel free not to wear one.
Farage is winning the new battle of Brexit
Like it or not, the belief that mass immigration has gone too far is now mainstream
Robert Shrimsley" (£)
https://www.ft.com/content/9ddf3792-46ac-4e9b-872f-14bcb9a49ba6
Quote
"The populist right seems to be willing on conflict and unrest as it fuels the immigration and asylum panic, demonising every non-white arrival as a predatory sex offender. Signs of defiance now include the painting of St George’s crosses on mini-roundabouts and hanging flags from lampposts."
Mopeds are legally limited to 28mph, which is a speed I suspect all but the unfittest cyclist exceeds regularly.
It's a very risky game to play if they expect former Tory voters to move over to Reform then move back into the Tory column if/when Reform fail.
Eventually there will come a time when the Conservative party lose so many seats they start to back PR for UK elections. They aren't at that stage yet, but a further decline in seats, say to 50 or below could signal the end of the party. They could back PR at Westminster votes before Labour
I mean it was net 900K+ under the Boris Wave.
Does anyone think that is sustainable?
According to homeless charities, homelessness actually increased, significantly, during Covid.
In the short-term rough sleeping initially fell, as people who would have been rough sleeping were put in to B&Bs and other accommodations (whom of course normally would take other visitors but couldn't due to lockdown).
In the longer-term over Covid the number of people suffering from homelessness increased significantly. Initially forms of homelessness other than rough sleeping rose, then rough sleeping rose too, not just back to but beyond the starting point.
By the end of 2020 record numbers of people were homeless, and rough sleeping was higher than it was pre-Covid. Despite being back in lockdown by then and the Covid Everyone In program still being in force.
https://centrepoint.org.uk/research-and-reports/year-no-other-youth-homelessness-during-covid-pandemic
The exception is people like Dura_Ace zipping along at high speed. Then you do need a helmet regardless.
https://www.nrpfnetwork.org.uk/information-and-resources/rights-and-entitlements/support-options-for-people-with-nrpf/home-office-support/section-4-asylum-support
Seems pretty limited though.
You should try cycling sometime, it'll improve your driving
The notion that we housed people and ended homelessness during Covid is a falsehood that I've seen many times on this site. Homeless charities say the exact opposite.
My average this morning was 10mph and a max of 17mph. Difficult to drink your coffee at anything faster, though I still overtook 30+ cars.
Roger
Scott xP
Roger
Sir Ed Davey
Roger
Scott xP
Roger
Rochdale Pioneers
The fact that only one of them actually voted Brexit is neither here nor there.
@benhabib6
Big announcement from @_AdvanceUK at 7 am.
https://x.com/benhabib6/status/1961141850472951995
====
All forty three members have resigned and the party is folding?