Antifrank's analysis of the new Labour MPs is fascinating - I only found one who has experience of wealth creation.
So why are Labour still dipping into the same limited pool of potential talent? Is it because others have fallen out of love with Labour or is Labour still thinking in terms of the last century.
The ability to create wealth will be even more vital in this century - perhaps Labour still has not realised that to spend wealth, you have first to create it. Is it still planting orchards of magic money trees?
Re: Laour leadership: If Liz K fails, will she link with fellow thinkers like Frank Field and Kate Hooey to form a critical thorn in the opposition's side?
Most wealth creators come from families that are well-to-do already. Most Labour MPs don't.
With due respect that is absolute rot. A wealth creator is not necessarily someone like James Dyson, but more often than not is self-employed or just employing a few. But they are creating wealth (even though it may not be a lot) and are making a lot of personal and family sacrifices to do so that are well outside the strict 9-5 regime.
For me (and for any other contractor works away from home on a regular basis) the budget was pretty much a disaster.
In the fine print is the proposal to tax all travelling expenses and subsistence payments from next April. I spend around 220-240 nights a year away from home in a variety of locations and until now as long as I was not more than 24 months in any one location I could get expenses paid tax free. Now apparently spending 220 nights a year away from my wife and kids for my work is going to be considered a perk and I will be taxed on it at the higher rate of tax.
Rather miffed on a personal level at the moment.
I haven't read the small print, but is that for expenses reimbursed by the client, or operating expenses that a freelancer takes on as part of the business?
Expenses reimbursed by the client.
Thats an absolutely bonkers proposal. I'm an employee but have to travel a lot - if I had to pay tax to stay in hotels the other side of the world from my family, I'd be tempted just to take a lower paying job at home. I thought the government was trying to support entreprise.
Yes Mr H - good points well made. Congratulations. Where would Osborne's next move be though? To stay as Chancellor? If he is happy to be the deputy PM (First Secretary of State) to a younger 'charismatic' figure, would that figure be happy with him? The obvious answer to your conundrum is for Cameron to carry on for another election campaign, and it may be there would be few complaints as things stand now if he did. But assuming he is right to not do so - and I think long term he is right - then a single term continuity Osborne premiership would be more than viable (unless your name is Boris). All of this depends on the nation appreciating and benefiting from the move away from a benefits culture and I have to say I am quite surprised at the astuteness of the way it is being presented. The carrot of course in 2019-20 will/would be tax cuts.
All this discount Labour - and this may not be wise. However for as long as Labour persist in learning nothing and rely on the nit picking of the IFS's desperation to find losers then the biggest loser will be them. FWIW I still think the biggest loser from this budget is the BBC, a loss which they have compounded by behaving like charity cold-callers.
When Labour put up the rate from 40%, it had a material effect on my motivation to work. I simply thought - nope, not doing that. The balance of earning vs the time out of my life wasn't worth it. So I didn't work the extra hours as the deal didn't work for me.
I was quite surprised how much impact it had psychologically - and don't find it surprising that many others either scaled back or found ways around it instead.
I must say I've never thought the idea of paying 50% tax was fair, even as an annoying youth. Sure, hated rich people can afford it and I do think people are probably finding ways around paying the amounts They are nominally supposed to, but taking half or more of someone's earnings - whether we think the level of remuneration they are getting is fair or not is another matter - just feels wrong.
I wonder how prevalent that type of reaction might have been, but in truth perhaps it really is a moral issue regardless of economics - and while the rich should pay more, taking half of their money is very harsh . 49%? Idk, maybe. Once past that moral line of imy own making it does become about he economics for me as to which rate would be best.
I actually don't know how much tax somone in my bracket pays, or what bracket I am in. 30k
Your tax rate will be easy if you are on 30K. The personal allowance is £10K so you are left with £20K and the rate is 20% - so you lose £4K. There's NI to pay as well. Don't ask about tax credits though - I have no idea as depends on all sorts of complicated circumstances.
Joining in with Richard Tyndall - the T&S changes for contractors are causing huge trauma. One colleague of mine at the moment is living away from home during the week as it's too far to commute. When the changes kick in, he's screwed. He has to abandon this client and any other client further away than commuting distance. I'm concerned as well; I did select my current house location very carefully to maximise opportunities (obviously, when you're not a permanent employee somewhere, you can't rely on finding work in a particular area, so I maximised the number of areas available), but last time I was between contracts, I explored two out of range (rent/hotel during the week and return to family for weekend) before finding my current contract in range.
From next year, that option's gone. My chances of finding myself out of contract for long enough to break me have just increased significantly; all it needs now is a localised downturn.
Contractors (in my experience) are less annoyed about the dividends taxation blow than this - this one hacks crudely at opportunities to work.
A more cynical man than me would wonder out loud whether MPs are now going to have to pay tax on their perk of having a second home allowance. After all, they've got 5-year contracts, so they're in far more secure circumstances than us, and the rationale for that accommodation is exactly the same as for us.
When Labour put up the rate from 40%, it had a material effect on my motivation to work. I simply thought - nope, not doing that. The balance of earning vs the time out of my life wasn't worth it. So I didn't work the extra hours as the deal didn't work for me.
I was quite surprised how much impact it had psychologically - and don't find it surprising that many others either scaled back or found ways around it instead.
I must say I've never thought the idea of paying 50% tax was fair, even as an annoying youth. Sure, hated rich people can afford it and I do think people are probably finding ways around paying the amounts They are nominally supposed to, but taking half or more of someone's earnings - whether we think the level of remuneration they are getting is fair or not is another matter - just feels wrong.
I wonder how prevalent that type of reaction might have been, but in truth perhaps it really is a moral issue regardless of economics - and while the rich should pay more, taking half of their money is very harsh . 49%? Idk, maybe. Once past that moral line of imy own making it does become about he economics for me as to which rate would be best.
I actually don't know how much tax somone in my bracket pays, or what bracket I am in. 30k
Your tax rate will be easy if you are on 30K. The personal allowance is £10K so you are left with £20K and the rate is 20% - so you lose £4K. There's NI to pay as well. Don't ask about tax credits though - I have no idea as depends on all sorts of complicated circumstances.
Thanks. I really should pay more attention to this stuff
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Thats because you are an idiot. Indeed so idiotic that you do not realise that its all being done at the behest of the CIA.
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Thats because you are an idiot. Indeed so idiotic that you do not realise that its all being done at the behest of the CIA.
For me (and for any other contractor works away from home on a regular basis) the budget was pretty much a disaster.
In the fine print is the proposal to tax all travelling expenses and subsistence payments from next April. I spend around 220-240 nights a year away from home in a variety of locations and until now as long as I was not more than 24 months in any one location I could get expenses paid tax free. Now apparently spending 220 nights a year away from my wife and kids for my work is going to be considered a perk and I will be taxed on it at the higher rate of tax.
Rather miffed on a personal level at the moment.
I haven't read the small print, but is that for expenses reimbursed by the client, or operating expenses that a freelancer takes on as part of the business?
Expenses reimbursed by the client.
Thats an absolutely bonkers proposal. I'm an employee but have to travel a lot - if I had to pay tax to stay in hotels the other side of the world from my family, I'd be tempted just to take a lower paying job at home. I thought the government was trying to support entreprise.
When Labour put up the rate from 40%, it had a material effect on my motivation to work. I simply thought - nope, not doing that. The balance of earning vs the time out of my life wasn't worth it. So I didn't work the extra hours as the deal didn't work for me.
I was quite surprised how much impact it had psychologically - and don't find it surprising that many others either scaled back or found ways around it instead.
I must say I've never thought the idea of paying 50% tax was fair, even as an annoying youth. Sure, hated rich people can afford it and I do think people are probably finding ways around paying the amounts They are nominally supposed to, but taking half or more of someone's earnings - whether we think the level of remuneration they are getting is fair or not is another matter - just feels wrong.
I wonder how prevalent that type of reaction might have been, but in truth perhaps it really is a moral issue regardless of economics - and while the rich should pay more, taking half of their money is very harsh . 49%? Idk, maybe. Once past that moral line of imy own making it does become about he economics for me as to which rate would be best.
I actually don't know how much tax somone in my bracket pays, or what bracket I am in. 30k
Your tax rate will be easy if you are on 30K. The personal allowance is £10K so you are left with £20K and the rate is 20% - so you lose £4K. There's NI to pay as well. Don't ask about tax credits though - I have no idea as depends on all sorts of complicated circumstances.
Thanks. I really should pay more attention to this stuff
I don't know. For years I was employed by other people and just got a pay packet and didn't even really look at the tax and NI, only what I actually got in cash. They I started running my own business and had to spend hours doing HMRC PAYE stuff and found out what goes on.
Ydoethur and David ignore the fact that since WW2 the Chancellor at the time of the Tory leadership contest when the Tories have been in power and the PM has resigned or retired has normally gone on to be leader. That was the case with Macmillan and Major. Of the other Tory leaders who have taken over in power, Eden and Home, both were Foreign Secretary at the time. That would suggest Osborne would be the favourite to succeed Cameron with Philip Hammond the only realistic alternative (though personally I think Hammond would be more likely to succeed Osborne as leader if the Tories were to lose in 2020). The history of 'outsiders' making it who were not at the frontrank of the Shadow Cabinet or Cabinet eg Heath, Thatcher, Hague and IDS, only really applies when the party is in opposition, not in power
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Because the Tories have promised it repeatedly since 2007. It's more about 'we keep our promises' than anything else & I think that it's that message that will stick. Right or wrong, the polling suggests that inheritance tax is one of the most unpopular taxes there is.
I suspect that, like many budgets, good headlines the next day are no guarantee that in a few years time it wont be seen as the start of the rot.
The attack on tax credits is, in civil service-speak, brave. The problem is that not only are 100,000s, maybe millions, of working people going to be affected, but also that these people do not think tax credits are part of the welfare state. For a start they are run by HMRC not DWP. I suspect that when people voted for further cuts in benefits they did not imagine this would mean them.
Talking about the civil service, I don't think the 1% pay rise is going to go down well there, particularly when you consider that many of those were receiving tax credits to top up their low wages as well.
Joining in with Richard Tyndall - the T&S changes for contractors are causing huge trauma. One colleague of mine at the moment is living away from home during the week as it's too far to commute. When the changes kick in, he's screwed. He has to abandon this client and any other client further away than commuting distance. I'm concerned as well; I did select my current house location very carefully to maximise opportunities (obviously, when you're not a permanent employee somewhere, you can't rely on finding work in a particular area, so I maximised the number of areas available), but last time I was between contracts, I explored two out of range (rent/hotel during the week and return to family for weekend) before finding my current contract in range.
From next year, that option's gone. My chances of finding myself out of contract for long enough to break me have just increased significantly; all it needs now is a localised downturn.
Contractors (in my experience) are less annoyed about the dividends taxation blow than this - this one hacks crudely at opportunities to work.
A more cynical man than me would wonder out loud whether MPs are now going to have to pay tax on their perk of having a second home allowance. After all, they've got 5-year contracts, so they're in far more secure circumstances than us, and the rationale for that accommodation is exactly the same as for us.
Excuse my stupidity if i have missed something massive here, but aren't contract rates just going to go up wholesale in order to cover the loss of income of 20% of travel costs?
Joining in with Richard Tyndall - the T&S changes for contractors are causing huge trauma. One colleague of mine at the moment is living away from home during the week as it's too far to commute. When the changes kick in, he's screwed. He has to abandon this client and any other client further away than commuting distance. I'm concerned as well; I did select my current house location very carefully to maximise opportunities (obviously, when you're not a permanent employee somewhere, you can't rely on finding work in a particular area, so I maximised the number of areas available), but last time I was between contracts, I explored two out of range (rent/hotel during the week and return to family for weekend) before finding my current contract in range.
From next year, that option's gone. My chances of finding myself out of contract for long enough to break me have just increased significantly; all it needs now is a localised downturn.
Contractors (in my experience) are less annoyed about the dividends taxation blow than this - this one hacks crudely at opportunities to work.
A more cynical man than me would wonder out loud whether MPs are now going to have to pay tax on their perk of having a second home allowance. After all, they've got 5-year contracts, so they're in far more secure circumstances than us, and the rationale for that accommodation is exactly the same as for us.
Excuse my stupidity if i have missed something massive here, but aren't contract rates just going to go up wholesale in order to cover the loss of income of 20% of travel costs?
Good luck with that! It depends on the luck of the location. Plus, each client now has to compete with fewer others for the pool of freelancers - the freelancers will be more restricted as to where they can reach. Without the option of overnighting, your range drops hugely. To get a role in, say, Leicester, someone from London would have to either pitch their fee a lot higher than someone from Leicester, or take a big effective drop in remuneration. To the point where it could well be unsustainable.
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Because the Tories have promised it repeatedly since 2007. It's more about 'we keep our promises' than anything else & I think that it's that message that will stick. Right or wrong, the polling suggests that inheritance tax is one of the most unpopular taxes there is.
Seems to be no doubt that Tories are on to something when they say it is a basic human instinct to pass on something to the next generation. The question is at what point a tax should kick in. Personally I think that a low rate should have been introduced, say 10%, for up to £1m and that Labour missed a trick here. Most people would see the point in paying some tax on inheritance - its the scale of the take that pisses them off (40%). I also think that if this was hypothecated for social care for old age then people can see the sense.
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Thats because you are an idiot. Indeed so idiotic that you do not realise that its all being done at the behest of the CIA.
Talking of unicorns and conspiracies... this might amuse
Yes Mr H - good points well made. Congratulations. Where would Osborne's next move be though? To stay as Chancellor? If he is happy to be the deputy PM (First Secretary of State) to a younger 'charismatic' figure, would that figure be happy with him? The obvious answer to your conundrum is for Cameron to carry on for another election campaign, and it may be there would be few complaints as things stand now if he did. But assuming he is right to not do so - and I think long term he is right - then a single term continuity Osborne premiership would be more than viable (unless your name is Boris). All of this depends on the nation appreciating and benefiting from the move away from a benefits culture and I have to say I am quite surprised at the astuteness of the way it is being presented. The carrot of course in 2019-20 will/would be tax cuts.
All this discount Labour - and this may not be wise. However for as long as Labour persist in learning nothing and rely on the nit picking of the IFS's desperation to find losers then the biggest loser will be them. FWIW I still think the biggest loser from this budget is the BBC, a loss which they have compounded by behaving like charity cold-callers.
When was the last time a younger 'charismatic' figure succeeded an elected PM as his party's leader? Certainly not when Brown succeeded Blair, nor Major Thatcher, nor Callaghan Wilson, nor Home Macmillan. Macmillan, who succeeded Eden, and Eden, who succeeded Churchill had some charisma but neither were exactly young. PMs normally offer some contrast in personality and style to their predecessors and Osborne would do the same
By 2020 Cameron will have been in power as long as Blair was when he left and longer than any other postwar PM except Thatcher. 1 year after her tenth anniversary in No 10 she was ousted by her own party in a bitter battle which it took over a decade to recover from, Cameron knows that and will not stay beyond his peak
In short: Germany got a write down of about 50% of its debt, but half of this was pre WW2 (the majority being from the Weimar period including WW1 reparations set by the Versaillies Treaty), and much of the rest was post war assistance under the Marshall plan, being converted from loans to grants, at the request of the creditor, the USA.
It is also worth noting that the deal incorporated pre war private debt, and also debts of federal states such as Prussia that were no longer in existence, and did not lie within West Germany. It was recognised that as West Germany consisted of little more than half of pre-war Germany that it was unreasonable for West Germany to be responsible for the entirety of pre war German debt. Upon unification In 1990 West Germany issued bonds to pay off the prewar debts of the East Germans.
All very different to the current Greek negotiations!
Desperate wriggling for those trying to defend the indefensible. Whatever the cause (and I find it incredible that you should try to claim that debts incurred through acts of war have more reason to be written down than those through peacetime mismanagement of an economy encouraged by the lender) the bottom line is that Germany had half its legitimate debt forgiven.
Moreover, and far more significantly for the Greek situation, the debt restructuring under te London Agreement explicitly tied debt repayment to trade surplus and limited repayments to 3% of export value.
Everyone who actually wants to see this situation resolved properly has accepted that even if Greece abides by every demand of the EU/IMF they will still not be able to pay off the debt. It simply isn't possible. The IMF has finally accepted this in their latest report on Greece and some of the more reasonable members of the Eurozone have been saying this for a long time. Without significant debt relief this is just - as I keep pointing out - a very convoluted can kicking exercise.
Greek debt repayments are currently at 4% of GDP, only a whisker above our own at 3%. Quite affordable if they reformed their own economy.
If you read the articles then you might learn something.
I agree the proposed tax on travel expenses seems ill though through though.
Another area which Osbo has attacked is shifting the taxation of "Carried Interest" on venture capital and hedge funds from being taxed as capital gains rates to the higher income tax rates:
At this rate the only folks who are going to be happy with this budget once the dust has settled are rich pensioners with £1 million properties to pass on to their children !!
A Labour pressure group has asked party members to vote against Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership contest.
Labour First said Mr Corbyn - who is seen as the most left-wing candidate in the race - would "destroy Labour's chances of electability".
The group has urged members to vote for other candidates to prevent Mr Corbyn winning Constituency Labour Party nominations, known as CLPs.......
In a newsletter emailed to members, Labour First said there was support for the three other leadership contenders.
Group secretary Luke Akehurst said: "We clearly do not share Jeremy Corbyn's politics and believe these would destroy Labour's chances of electability.
"We would therefore encourage supporters of Andy, Yvette and Liz to transfer votes to each other at CLP nomination meetings so that as few CLPs as possible make supporting nominations for Jeremy."
Constituency Labour parties have until 31 July to make nominations for a candidate.
Antifrank's analysis of the new Labour MPs is fascinating - I only found one who has experience of wealth creation.
So why are Labour still dipping into the same limited pool of potential talent? Is it because others have fallen out of love with Labour or is Labour still thinking in terms of the last century.
The ability to create wealth will be even more vital in this century - perhaps Labour still has not realised that to spend wealth, you have first to create it. Is it still planting orchards of magic money trees?
Re: Laour leadership: If Liz K fails, will she link with fellow thinkers like Frank Field and Kate Hooey to form a critical thorn in the opposition's side?
Kate Hoey nominated Andy Burnham I believe, Frank Field has not declared as yet
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Because the Tories have promised it repeatedly since 2007. It's more about 'we keep our promises' than anything else & I think that it's that message that will stick. Right or wrong, the polling suggests that inheritance tax is one of the most unpopular taxes there is.
Charles - yes indeed. I pointed out last night that raising the IHT threshold is perfectly reasonable since it is aimed at protecting the principal asset of most normal people, an asset that was never intended to be caught in the net in the first place. It is governments of all stripes which have overseen house price inflation and not indexed the IHT. Home owners are not guilty of some secret scam! Taxing the very rich on the way they have managed to accumulate assets via whatever opportunistic means is one thing; taxing the ordinary hardworking well meaning public, 'til their coffin nails pop out is disgusting. Parents work hard to bring benefits to their children and as such we help those that come after us. Plus we should expect children to take responsibility for looking after their aged elders and not palmed off to the state; the fact that they can benefit a bit more from the inheritance from their parents should be well earned in the end.
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Because the Tories have promised it repeatedly since 2007. It's more about 'we keep our promises' than anything else & I think that it's that message that will stick. Right or wrong, the polling suggests that inheritance tax is one of the most unpopular taxes there is.
I meant in the overly complicated manner it was done.
A Labour pressure group has asked party members to vote against Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership contest.
Labour First said Mr Corbyn - who is seen as the most left-wing candidate in the race - would "destroy Labour's chances of electability".
The group has urged members to vote for other candidates to prevent Mr Corbyn winning Constituency Labour Party nominations, known as CLPs.......
In a newsletter emailed to members, Labour First said there was support for the three other leadership contenders.
Group secretary Luke Akehurst said: "We clearly do not share Jeremy Corbyn's politics and believe these would destroy Labour's chances of electability.
"We would therefore encourage supporters of Andy, Yvette and Liz to transfer votes to each other at CLP nomination meetings so that as few CLPs as possible make supporting nominations for Jeremy."
Constituency Labour parties have until 31 July to make nominations for a candidate.
I suspect that, like many budgets, good headlines the next day are no guarantee that in a few years time it wont be seen as the start of the rot.
The attack on tax credits is, in civil service-speak, brave. The problem is that not only are 100,000s, maybe millions, of working people going to be affected, but also that these people do not think tax credits are part of the welfare state. For a start they are run by HMRC not DWP. I suspect that when people voted for further cuts in benefits they did not imagine this would mean them.
Talking about the civil service, I don't think the 1% pay rise is going to go down well there, particularly when you consider that many of those were receiving tax credits to top up their low wages as well.
Particularly when Cameron says "Britain deserves a pay rise". Would make sense to me to allow Civil Servants to recycle running costs savings into pay, and give them incentives to under-spend budgets
Ydoethur and David ignore the fact that since WW2 the Chancellor at the time of the Tory leadership contest when the Tories have been in power and the PM has resigned or retired has normally gone on to be leader. That was the case with Macmillan and Major. Of the other Tory leaders who have taken over in power, Eden and Home, both were Foreign Secretary at the time. That would suggest Osborne would be the favourite to succeed Cameron with Philip Hammond the only realistic alternative (though personally I think Hammond would be more likely to succeed Osborne as leader if the Tories were to lose in 2020). The history of 'outsiders' making it who were not at the frontrank of the Shadow Cabinet or Cabinet eg Heath, Thatcher, Hague and IDS, only really applies when the party is in opposition, not in power
I think that's a little too deterministic. Heseltine could easily have followed Thatcher had she not stood down. He, or Portillo, could have followed Major in 1995 but for a handful of votes. Butler - then DPM without portfolio - could have succeeded Macmillan.
Certainly Osborne, should he choose to run, would be a leading contender but I think the dynamic is the wrong way round: people become Chancellor because they are political big beasts; they don't become big beasts just because they're chancellor, though it does help.
I like the PM to President analogy It seems to me that Osborne has a greater dominance over this government than any Chancellor I can recall, even Brown.
This is a good thing. I like the shape and feel of pax Osbornia. Socially liberal, fiscally dry, aspirational but with a firm social floor, I think it has a lot going for it. There is still so much to do. The deficit, the trade balance, housing, the poor state of our infrastructure. More than enough there to keep Tories busy for another decade.
Does Labour have anything useful to say about the remaining problems? Probably not.
Yes Mr H - good points well made. Congratulations. Where would Osborne's next move be though? To stay as Chancellor? If he is happy to be the deputy PM (First Secretary of State) to a younger 'charismatic' figure, would that figure be happy with him? The obvious answer to your conundrum is for Cameron to carry on for another election campaign, and it may be there would be few complaints as things stand now if he did. But assuming he is right to not do so - and I think long term he is right - then a single term continuity Osborne premiership would be more than viable (unless your name is Boris). All of this depends on the nation appreciating and benefiting from the move away from a benefits culture and I have to say I am quite surprised at the astuteness of the way it is being presented. The carrot of course in 2019-20 will/would be tax cuts.
All this discount Labour - and this may not be wise. However for as long as Labour persist in learning nothing and rely on the nit picking of the IFS's desperation to find losers then the biggest loser will be them. FWIW I still think the biggest loser from this budget is the BBC, a loss which they have compounded by behaving like charity cold-callers.
When was the last time a younger 'charismatic' figure succeeded an elected PM as his party's leader? Certainly not when Brown succeeded Blair, nor Major Thatcher, nor Callaghan Wilson, nor Home Macmillan. Macmillan, who succeeded Eden, and Eden, who succeeded Churchill had some charisma but neither were exactly young. PMs normally offer some contrast in personality and style to their predecessors and Osborne would do the same
By 2020 Cameron will have been in power as long as Blair was when he left and longer than any other postwar PM except Thatcher. 1 year after her tenth anniversary in No 10 she was ousted by her own party in a bitter battle which it took over a decade to recover from, Cameron knows that and will not stay beyond his peak
Lloyd George, probably. (Though he succeeded him as PM ten years before he succeeded him as party leader).
You mean you are not happy that a '£1.8bn loophole' has been plugged? As for '£1m properties' - you are either stupid or devious or possibly both. Only properties up to £1m are being (slowly) exempt from IHT. Truly rich people with properties over £1m sadly for them will still have to pay. So the great beneficiaries really are relatively normal people who through no fault of their own other than the onward march of inflation live in properties less than £1m.
The budget was framed as a payrise for all. If the IFS is correct millions of working families will be worse off. Seeking to depict them as scroungers and sneering about "prizes for all" is not the way to sell what the Tories cheered last Wednesday. Experience trumps rhetoric, and if enough voters are adversely affected by the consequences of the cuts the Tories will be in trouble. Clearly, Osborne's gamble is that he has done enough to keep the 37% of voters who voted Tory onside and that Labour will not attract enough of the remaining 63% to do much about it. He could well be right. But I would not bet my house on it. Events, dear boy, events.
It's worth noting that Osborne did not talk about a minimum wage, he talked about a Living Wage. In not using that term in his article David is implicitly accepting that could well have been a significant mistake. A living wage is one you can live on. That is what voters will now expect.
People can live on the living wage. They may have to trim a little bit, but a £9.20 hour wage is a decent amount of money - for those on 40 hours a week.
For people who work 16 hours and claim benefits it will be harder. But there are jobs available should they wish to increase their hours to compensate.
For the latter group life should be harder. 16 hours is not enough work to then expect those who work harder to 'top up'.
The DWP sign off people once they've found 16 hours/week of work. And equating "longer" with "harder" is just ideology.
You can't claim benefits if you work 16 hours or more. You can claim tax credits on 16 hours if you are a lone parent or disabled. I think parents have to work 24 hours between them, for everyone else it is 30 hours.
Of course in 2003 Michael Howard was also favourite when he was elected Tory leader, even if it was unopposed. Was Macmillan also not the favourite to succeed Eden in 1957?
I suspect that, like many budgets, good headlines the next day are no guarantee that in a few years time it wont be seen as the start of the rot.
The attack on tax credits is, in civil service-speak, brave. The problem is that not only are 100,000s, maybe millions, of working people going to be affected, but also that these people do not think tax credits are part of the welfare state. For a start they are run by HMRC not DWP. I suspect that when people voted for further cuts in benefits they did not imagine this would mean them.
I'd be surprised if the government take much of a hit on this.
The move to cut the threshold from £58,000 to £41,000 in the last parliament was much more likely to hit the slightly better off working family, or a fairly average two adult working family.
This time around those £41k-£58k income families are being given improved tax allowances and have nothing left to cut.
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Thats because you are an idiot. Indeed so idiotic that you do not realise that its all being done at the behest of the CIA.
Like most of what of you write that doesn't make any sense. Stream of (disturbed) consciousness.
Yes Mr H - good points well made. Congratulations. Where would Osborne's next move be though? To stay as Chancellor? If he is happy to be the deputy PM (First Secretary of State) to a younger 'charismatic' figure, would that figure be happy with him? The obvious answer to your conundrum is for Cameron to carry on for another election campaign, and it may be there would be few complaints as things stand now if he did. But assuming he is right to not do so - and I think long term he is right - then a single term continuity Osborne premiership would be more than viable (unless your name is Boris). All of this depends on the nation appreciating and benefiting from the move away from a benefits culture and I have to say I am quite surprised at the astuteness of the way it is being presented. The carrot of course in 2019-20 will/would be tax cuts.
All this discount Labour - and this may not be wise. However for as long as Labour persist in learning nothing and rely on the nit picking of the IFS's desperation to find losers then the biggest loser will be them. FWIW I still think the biggest loser from this budget is the BBC, a loss which they have compounded by behaving like charity cold-callers.
When was the last time a younger 'charismatic' figure succeeded an elected PM as his party's leader? Certainly not when Brown succeeded Blair, nor Major Thatcher, nor Callaghan Wilson, nor Home Macmillan. Macmillan, who succeeded Eden, and Eden, who succeeded Churchill had some charisma but neither were exactly young. PMs normally offer some contrast in personality and style to their predecessors and Osborne would do the same
By 2020 Cameron will have been in power as long as Blair was when he left and longer than any other postwar PM except Thatcher. 1 year after her tenth anniversary in No 10 she was ousted by her own party in a bitter battle which it took over a decade to recover from, Cameron knows that and will not stay beyond his peak
Lloyd George, probably. (Though he succeeded him as PM ten years before he succeeded him as party leader).
Indeed and then he and Asquith formed separate parties which led to their replacement by Labour as the main party of the centre left, so not exactly a great omen!
Another area which Osbo has attacked is shifting the taxation of "Carried Interest" on venture capital and hedge funds from being taxed as capital gains rates to the higher income tax rates:
At this rate the only folks who are going to be happy with this budget once the dust has settled are rich pensioners with £1 million properties to pass on to their children !!
About time too. That was one of the most iniquitous abuses of the capital gains system: I've had partners claim, straight-faced, that they were investing not being remunerated for their work. Bollocks
I suspect that, like many budgets, good headlines the next day are no guarantee that in a few years time it wont be seen as the start of the rot.
The attack on tax credits is, in civil service-speak, brave. The problem is that not only are 100,000s, maybe millions, of working people going to be affected, but also that these people do not think tax credits are part of the welfare state. For a start they are run by HMRC not DWP. I suspect that when people voted for further cuts in benefits they did not imagine this would mean them.
Well they were not paying attention then. The Tories were very clear that pension benefits had to be protected at all costs but in work benefits were unaffordable. Agree or disagree and vote accordingly but don't say you weren't told.
You mean you are not happy that a '£1.8bn loophole' has been plugged? As for '£1m properties' - you are either stupid or devious or possibly both. Only properties up to £1m are being (slowly) exempt from IHT. Truly rich people with properties over £1m sadly for them will still have to pay. So the great beneficiaries really are relatively normal people who through no fault of their own other than the onward march of inflation live in properties less than £1m.
That isn't correct, you don't seem to understand the IHT changes, it's a lot more complicated. Gordon Brownesque.
Ydoethur and David ignore the fact that since WW2 the Chancellor at the time of the Tory leadership contest when the Tories have been in power and the PM has resigned or retired has normally gone on to be leader. That was the case with Macmillan and Major. Of the other Tory leaders who have taken over in power, Eden and Home, both were Foreign Secretary at the time. That would suggest Osborne would be the favourite to succeed Cameron with Philip Hammond the only realistic alternative (though personally I think Hammond would be more likely to succeed Osborne as leader if the Tories were to lose in 2020). The history of 'outsiders' making it who were not at the frontrank of the Shadow Cabinet or Cabinet eg Heath, Thatcher, Hague and IDS, only really applies when the party is in opposition, not in power
I think that's a little too deterministic. Heseltine could easily have followed Thatcher had she not stood down. He, or Portillo, could have followed Major in 1995 but for a handful of votes. Butler - then DPM without portfolio - could have succeeded Macmillan.
Certainly Osborne, should he choose to run, would be a leading contender but I think the dynamic is the wrong way round: people become Chancellor because they are political big beasts; they don't become big beasts just because they're chancellor, though it does help.
Thatcher appointed Major as Chancellor in part to stop Heseltine, which he ultimately did, even if the contest was not at a time of her choosing. In 1995 neither Heseltine nor Portillo had the votes to defeat PM Major and Major comfortably beat Redwood. Butler could have succeeded Macmillan but he did not, instead the post went to the more senior Home even if that was at a time when the Tories still took 'soundings' on their next leader.
The way in which Major became PM in 1990 rather disproves your theory that people don't become big beasts because they become chancellor
I am fortunate enough to hardly ever go to the doctor but friends who are GPs have muttered to me that if everyone turned up it would be something of a disaster. 10 minute appointments mean surgeries run seriously over time unless you have the odd no show. The £160 figure is nonsense. As is that collecting £10 is actually going to be worthwhile.
That poses an interesting question for the unions - are they still pro-In? If Cameron is successful, surely they'd be more likely to advise BOOing instead?
Joining in with Richard Tyndall - the T&S changes for contractors are causing huge trauma. One colleague of mine at the moment is living away from home during the week as it's too far to commute. When the changes kick in, he's screwed. He has to abandon this client and any other client further away than commuting distance. I'm concerned as well; I did select my current house location very carefully to maximise opportunities (obviously, when you're not a permanent employee somewhere, you can't rely on finding work in a particular area, so I maximised the number of areas available), but last time I was between contracts, I explored two out of range (rent/hotel during the week and return to family for weekend) before finding my current contract in range.
From next year, that option's gone. My chances of finding myself out of contract for long enough to break me have just increased significantly; all it needs now is a localised downturn.
Contractors (in my experience) are less annoyed about the dividends taxation blow than this - this one hacks crudely at opportunities to work.
A more cynical man than me would wonder out loud whether MPs are now going to have to pay tax on their perk of having a second home allowance. After all, they've got 5-year contracts, so they're in far more secure circumstances than us, and the rationale for that accommodation is exactly the same as for us.
Excuse my stupidity if i have missed something massive here, but aren't contract rates just going to go up wholesale in order to cover the loss of income of 20% of travel costs?
No. For most consultants/contractors the idea that you could simply increase your rates by that 20% of costs (say in my case 6 or 7% of overall contract cost) is ludicrous. This whole change will be soaked up by the contractors. And of course it will be soaked up because short of giving up entirely there is nothing they can do about it.
Of course in 2003 Michael Howard was also favourite when he was elected Tory leader, even if it was unopposed. Was Macmillan also not the favourite to succeed Eden in 1957?
I'm not sure Howard was favourite to succeed IDS until the last minute, when it became clear that there'd be an in-parliament change and that Davis was prepared to stand back. Until then, expectations were being projected to a change in 2005, by when Howard would be 64 (and hence 68 or 69 by the following GE). David Davis was probably favourite.
Macmillan was more of a favourite in 1957, though it would probably be fairer to say that no clear favourite had emerged less than two years into Eden's tenure.
Joining in with Richard Tyndall - the T&S changes for contractors are causing huge trauma. One colleague of mine at the moment is living away from home during the week as it's too far to commute. When the changes kick in, he's screwed. He has to abandon this client and any other client further away than commuting distance. I'm concerned as well; I did select my current house location very carefully to maximise opportunities (obviously, when you're not a permanent employee somewhere, you can't rely on finding work in a particular area, so I maximised the number of areas available), but last time I was between contracts, I explored two out of range (rent/hotel during the week and return to family for weekend) before finding my current contract in range.
From next year, that option's gone. My chances of finding myself out of contract for long enough to break me have just increased significantly; all it needs now is a localised downturn.
Contractors (in my experience) are less annoyed about the dividends taxation blow than this - this one hacks crudely at opportunities to work.
A more cynical man than me would wonder out loud whether MPs are now going to have to pay tax on their perk of having a second home allowance. After all, they've got 5-year contracts, so they're in far more secure circumstances than us, and the rationale for that accommodation is exactly the same as for us.
Excuse my stupidity if i have missed something massive here, but aren't contract rates just going to go up wholesale in order to cover the loss of income of 20% of travel costs?
No because its a simple question of supply and demand. With prices going up demand will fall as companies either make do and mend or offshore the work...
In short: Germany got a write down of about 50% of its debt, but half of this was pre WW2 (the majority being from the Weimar period including WW1 reparations set by the Versaillies Treaty), and much of the rest was post war assistance under the Marshall plan, being converted from loans to grants, at the request of the creditor, the USA.
It is also worth noting that the deal incorporated pre war private debt, and also debts of federal states such as Prussia that were no longer in existence, and did not lie within West Germany. It was recognised that as West Germany consisted of little more than half of pre-war Germany that it was unreasonable for West Germany to be responsible for the entirety of pre war German debt. Upon unification In 1990 West Germany issued bonds to pay off the prewar debts of the East Germans.
All very different to the current Greek negotiations!
Desperate wriggling for those trying to defend the indefensible. Whatever the cause (and I find it incredible that you should try to claim that debts incurred through acts of war have more reason to be written down than those through peacetime mismanagement of an economy encouraged by the lender) the bottom line is that Germany had half its legitimate debt forgiven.
Moreover, and far more significantly for the Greek situation, the debt restructuring under te London Agreement explicitly tied debt repayment to trade surplus and limited repayments to 3% of export value.
Everyone who actually wants to see this situation resolved properly has accepted that even if Greece abides by every demand of the EU/IMF they will still not be able to pay off the debt. It simply isn't possible. The IMF has finally accepted this in their latest report on Greece and some of the more reasonable members of the Eurozone have been saying this for a long time. Without significant debt relief this is just - as I keep pointing out - a very convoluted can kicking exercise.
Greek debt repayments are currently at 4% of GDP, only a whisker above our own at 3%. Quite affordable if they reformed their own economy.
If you read the articles then you might learn something.
I agree the proposed tax on travel expenses seems ill though through though.
I am fortunate enough to hardly ever go to the doctor but friends who are GPs have muttered to me that if everyone turned up it would be something of a disaster. 10 minute appointments mean surgeries run seriously over time unless you have the odd no show. The £160 figure is nonsense. As is that collecting £10 is actually going to be worthwhile.
Yes Mr H - good points well made. Congratulations. Where would Osborne's next move be though? To stay as Chancellor? If he is happy to be the deputy PM (First Secretary of State) to a younger 'charismatic' figure, would that figure be happy with him?
snip for length
All this discounts Labour - and this may not be wise. However for as long as Labour persist in learning nothing and rely on the nit picking of the IFS's desperation to find losers then the biggest loser will be them. FWIW I still think the biggest loser from this budget is the BBC, a loss which they have compounded by behaving like charity cold-callers.
When was the last time a younger 'charismatic' figure succeeded an elected PM as his party's leader? Certainly not when Brown succeeded Blair, nor Major Thatcher, nor Callaghan Wilson, nor Home Macmillan. Macmillan, who succeeded Eden, and Eden, who succeeded Churchill had some charisma but neither were exactly young. PMs normally offer some contrast in personality and style to their predecessors and Osborne would do the same
By 2020 Cameron will have been in power as long as Blair was when he left and longer than any other postwar PM except Thatcher. 1 year after her tenth anniversary in No 10 she was ousted by her own party in a bitter battle which it took over a decade to recover from, Cameron knows that and will not stay beyond his peak
As I said - I think its probably right for Cameron to retire before the 2020 election. It is Mr Herdson who is making the valid point about Osborne and his image being against him. That being so then how does he fit in with any likely successor? Most likely contenders for the leadership are either younger than or similar in age to Cameron or Osborne. Boris is a couple of years older than Cameron.
I think Mr Hersons article is one of the most astute written on here in a long while - principally about the way the political and social landscape has shifted under us and particularly Labour. He sees beyond the short term blind knee jerk opportunistic nit-picking of Labour's response. Its one thing to be wrong but not to realise it is stupid. Giving the oxygen of publicity to Corbyn is going to hamstring Labour. But I do disagree with Mr H, in that I think Osborne would not be (certainly is capable of not being) an electorally problematic leader. I do not see Merkel's visage being a barrier to her success.
Joining in with Richard Tyndall - the T&S changes for contractors are causing huge trauma. One colleague of mine at the moment is living away from home during the week as it's too far to commute. When the changes kick in, he's screwed. He has to abandon this client and any other client further away than commuting distance. I'm concerned as well; I did select my current house location very carefully to maximise opportunities (obviously, when you're not a permanent employee somewhere, you can't rely on finding work in a particular area, so I maximised the number of areas available), but last time I was between contracts, I explored two out of range (rent/hotel during the week and return to family for weekend) before finding my current contract in range.
From next year, that option's gone. My chances of finding myself out of contract for long enough to break me have just increased significantly; all it needs now is a localised downturn.
Contractors (in my experience) are less annoyed about the dividends taxation blow than this - this one hacks crudely at opportunities to work.
A more cynical man than me would wonder out loud whether MPs are now going to have to pay tax on their perk of having a second home allowance. After all, they've got 5-year contracts, so they're in far more secure circumstances than us, and the rationale for that accommodation is exactly the same as for us.
Excuse my stupidity if i have missed something massive here, but aren't contract rates just going to go up wholesale in order to cover the loss of income of 20% of travel costs?
No. For most consultants/contractors the idea that you could simply increase your rates by that 20% of costs (say in my case 6 or 7% of overall contract cost) is ludicrous. This whole change will be soaked up by the contractors. And of course it will be soaked up because short of giving up entirely there is nothing they can do about it.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this Richard but will you not still be able to set your actual costs against taxable income? So if you get a subsistance allowance of £50 but in fact spent £20 on your meal you would effectively pay tax on the £30?
If that is right it seems to close a tax loophole which meant many were getting "reimbursed" in tax free income. Has he gone further than this?
Ydoethur and David ignore the fact that since WW2 the Chancellor at the time of the Tory leadership contest when the Tories have been in power and the PM has resigned or retired has normally gone on to be leader. That was the case with Macmillan and Major. Of the other Tory leaders who have taken over in power, Eden and Home, both were Foreign Secretary at the time. That would suggest Osborne would be the favourite to succeed Cameron with Philip Hammond the only realistic alternative (though personally I think Hammond would be more likely to succeed Osborne as leader if the Tories were to lose in 2020). The history of 'outsiders' making it who were not at the frontrank of the Shadow Cabinet or Cabinet eg Heath, Thatcher, Hague and IDS, only really applies when the party is in opposition, not in power
I think that's a little too deterministic. Heseltine could easily have followed Thatcher had she not stood down. He, or Portillo, could have followed Major in 1995 but for a handful of votes. Butler - then DPM without portfolio - could have succeeded Macmillan.
Certainly Osborne, should he choose to run, would be a leading contender but I think the dynamic is the wrong way round: people become Chancellor because they are political big beasts; they don't become big beasts just because they're chancellor, though it does help.
Thatcher appointed Major as Chancellor in part to stop Heseltine, which he ultimately did, even if the contest was not at a time of her choosing. In 1995 neither Heseltine nor Portillo had the votes to defeat PM Major and Major comfortably beat Redwood. Butler could have succeeded Macmillan but he did not, instead the post went to the more senior Home even if that was at a time when the Tories still took 'soundings' on their next leader.
The way in which Major became PM in 1990 rather disproves your theory that people don't become big beasts because they become chancellor
Major won because he was not Heseltine and had Thatcher's backing. His leadership was always tainted, bar a few months in 1992, because he was very few people's first choice: Thatcherites preferred Thatcher and wets preferred Heseltine. He remained in place because no wing was willing to risk the other grabbing the crown. Even so, being chancellor gave him an entry ticket; it didn't make him a big beast in his own right and subsequent events proved him still not to be.
As for 1995, Major himself said that had Redwood won a few (three?) more votes, he would have stood down. In that circumstance, Heseltine or Portillo wouldn't have needed to defeat Major; the field would already be clear (bar Redwood).
Of course in 2003 Michael Howard was also favourite when he was elected Tory leader, even if it was unopposed. Was Macmillan also not the favourite to succeed Eden in 1957?
I'm not sure Howard was favourite to succeed IDS until the last minute, when it became clear that there'd be an in-parliament change and that Davis was prepared to stand back. Until then, expectations were being projected to a change in 2005, by when Howard would be 64 (and hence 68 or 69 by the following GE). David Davis was probably favourite.
Macmillan was more of a favourite in 1957, though it would probably be fairer to say that no clear favourite had emerged less than two years into Eden's tenure.
I think once it was clear there was going to be a contest in 2003 Howard was favourite ahead of Davis, though as you suggest Davis was the favourite to be leader were the Tories to lose in 2005 and remained favourite when they lost right up until Cameron's conference speech.
In 1957 out of interest were there any other realistic alternatives to Macmillan, I don't recall Butler being talked of in the same way as he was in 1963?
Joining in with Richard Tyndall - the T&S changes for contractors are causing huge trauma. One colleague of mine at the moment is living away from home during the week as it's too far to commute. When the changes kick in, he's screwed. He has to abandon this client and any other client further away than commuting distance. I'm concerned as well; I did select my current house location very carefully to maximise opportunities (obviously, when you're not a permanent employee somewhere, you can't rely on finding work in a particular area, so I maximised the number of areas available), but last time I was between contracts, I explored two out of range (rent/hotel during the week and return to family for weekend) before finding my current contract in range.
From next year, that option's gone. My chances of finding myself out of contract for long enough to break me have just increased significantly; all it needs now is a localised downturn.
Contractors (in my experience) are less annoyed about the dividends taxation blow than this - this one hacks crudely at opportunities to work.
A more cynical man than me would wonder out loud whether MPs are now going to have to pay tax on their perk of having a second home allowance. After all, they've got 5-year contracts, so they're in far more secure circumstances than us, and the rationale for that accommodation is exactly the same as for us.
Excuse my stupidity if i have missed something massive here, but aren't contract rates just going to go up wholesale in order to cover the loss of income of 20% of travel costs?
No. For most consultants/contractors the idea that you could simply increase your rates by that 20% of costs (say in my case 6 or 7% of overall contract cost) is ludicrous. This whole change will be soaked up by the contractors. And of course it will be soaked up because short of giving up entirely there is nothing they can do about it.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this Richard but will you not still be able to set your actual costs against taxable income? So if you get a subsistance allowance of £50 but in fact spent £20 on your meal you would effectively pay tax on the £30?
If that is right it seems to close a tax loophole which meant many were getting "reimbursed" in tax free income. Has he gone further than this?
Most freelancers don't get a subsistance allowance. What we get is a fixed hourly or daily rate (somewhat less than a consultancy will charge) which has to cover all expenses and our income...
"When was the last time a younger 'charismatic' figure succeeded an elected PM as his party's leader? Certainly not when Brown succeeded Blair, nor Major Thatcher, nor Callaghan Wilson, nor Home Macmillan. Macmillan, who succeeded Eden, and Eden, who succeeded Churchill had some charisma but neither were exactly young. PMs normally offer some contrast in personality and style to their predecessors and Osborne would do the same
By 2020 Cameron will have been in power as long as Blair was when he left and longer than any other postwar PM except Thatcher. 1 year after her tenth anniversary in No 10 she was ousted by her own party in a bitter battle which it took over a decade to recover from, Cameron knows that and will not stay beyond his peak
As I said - I think its probably right for Cameron to retire before the 2020 election. It is Mr Herdson who is making the valid point about Osborne and his image being against him. That being so then how does he fit in with any likely successor? Most likely contenders for the leadership are either younger than or similar in age to Cameron or Osborne. Boris is a couple of years older than Cameron.
I think Mr Hersons article is one of the most astute written on here in a long while - principally about the way the political and social landscape has shifted under us and particularly Labour. He sees beyond the short term blind knee jerk opportunistic nit-picking of Labour's response. Its one thing to be wrong but not to realise it is stupid. Giving the oxygen of publicity to Corbyn is going to hamstring Labour. But I do disagree with Mr H, in that I think Osborne would not be (certainly is capable of not being) an electorally problematic leader. I do not see Merkel's visage being a barrier to her success. "
Agree on Cameron. On Osborne's image I think Merkel has at least some likeability even if she lacks charisma and has so often been pointed out is often seen as 'the mother' of Germany. Osborne will never be 'the father' of the UK. However even uncharismatic and dislikeable figures can win elections in office if their opponent is equally dislikeable and uncharismatic or ideologically extreme, as Nixon beat McGovern for instance. If Labour are mad enough to elect Corbyn I could see even Osborne beating him short of an global depression in a way I would find it more difficult to see him beating Burnham, Kendall or Cooper.
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Thats because you are an idiot. Indeed so idiotic that you do not realise that its all being done at the behest of the CIA.
It's funny I was watching White Men Can't Jump last night and I noticed Woody Harrelson made a joke about the CIA assassinating JFK. He would know given his father was a mob hitman who contracted for the CIA.
I would recommend Colonel John Hughes-Wilson's book on the JFK assassination. He was the CO of a guy I knew in Moscow so he knows what he talks about, more a behind the desk than in the field though.
Excuse my stupidity if i have missed something massive here, but aren't contract rates just going to go up wholesale in order to cover the loss of income of 20% of travel costs?
No. For most consultants/contractors the idea that you could simply increase your rates by that 20% of costs (say in my case 6 or 7% of overall contract cost) is ludicrous. This whole change will be soaked up by the contractors. And of course it will be soaked up because short of giving up entirely there is nothing they can do about it.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this Richard but will you not still be able to set your actual costs against taxable income? So if you get a subsistance allowance of £50 but in fact spent £20 on your meal you would effectively pay tax on the £30?
If that is right it seems to close a tax loophole which meant many were getting "reimbursed" in tax free income. Has he gone further than this?
Morning. It seems from the consultation document that there is a recent increase in service company agencies trying to make use of allowances such as this.
At least the govt has the sense to have a consultation phase on this which should allow representation from those affected adversely. Eg. If I work on a 3 month contract in a city 200 miles from home, of course I'm not going to commute daily - I'll get a B&B nearby and commute weekly.
This is different from the companies and public sector organisations who outsource whole departments and functions.
"I think that's a little too deterministic. Heseltine could easily have followed Thatcher had she not stood down. He, or Portillo, could have followed Major in 1995 but for a handful of votes. Butler - then DPM without portfolio - could have succeeded Macmillan.
Certainly Osborne, should he choose to run, would be a leading contender but I think the dynamic is the wrong way round: people become Chancellor because they are political big beasts; they don't become big beasts just because they're chancellor, though it does help.
Thatcher appointed Major as Chancellor in part to stop Heseltine, which he ultimately did, even if the contest was not at a time of her choosing. In 1995 neither Heseltine nor Portillo had the votes to defeat PM Major and Major comfortably beat Redwood. Butler could have succeeded Macmillan but he did not, instead the post went to the more senior Home even if that was at a time when the Tories still took 'soundings' on their next leader.
The way in which Major became PM in 1990 rather disproves your theory that people don't become big beasts because they become chancellor
Major won because he was not Heseltine and had Thatcher's backing. His leadership was always tainted, bar a few months in 1992, because he was very few people's first choice: Thatcherites preferred Thatcher and wets preferred Heseltine. He remained in place because no wing was willing to risk the other grabbing the crown. Even so, being chancellor gave him an entry ticket; it didn't make him a big beast in his own right and subsequent events proved him still not to be.
As for 1995, Major himself said that had Redwood won a few (three?) more votes, he would have stood down. In that circumstance, Heseltine or Portillo wouldn't have needed to defeat Major; the field would already be clear" (bar Redwood).
Indeed, but Major was arguably the only person in the Tory Party at that time who could keep the wets and the Thatcherites in the same party. Had Heseltine or Portillo or Redwood become Tory leader there would have been a civil war. Anyone who holds one of the great offices of state or becomes PM or party leader automatically becomes a 'big beast' even if some others may be seen as more personally suited to the role. Major beat Redwood by 218 votes to 89 so in the end got a comfortable enough margin to stay on. Had he not then, as I said, the Tories would have entered a civil war, with Sir James Goldsmith or Blair waiting to feast even further on the carcass had Heseltine or Portillo or Redwood won the resulting leadership election
JFK has never floated my boat. I think the odd things about the assassination of Martin Luther King and who'd have a good reason to arrange it are quite intriguing.
And we have our own home grown conspiracy - Robert Maxwell being bumped off by Mossad after trying to extort money from the Israeli gov to cover his massive pension fund debts. I wouldn't threaten to blab against Mossad myself. Wasn't the Israeli PM at the time a former Mossad assassin?
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Thats because you are an idiot. Indeed so idiotic that you do not realise that its all being done at the behest of the CIA.
It's funny I was watching White Men Can't Jump last night and I noticed Woody Harrelson made a joke about the CIA assassinating JFK. He would know given his father was a mob hitman who contracted for the CIA.
I would recommend Colonel John Hughes-Wilson's book on the JFK assassination. He was the CO of a guy I knew in Moscow so he knows what he talks about, more a behind the desk than in the field though.
Great article Mr Herdson and agree with your conclusion. - However, the reason Osborne will never be Tory leader is not down to his “grating voice and punchable face” which I do not dispute - but because he is fundamentally a very private chap when it comes to his family and is happy to remain in the 'shadows' so to speak.
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Thats because you are an idiot. Indeed so idiotic that you do not realise that its all being done at the behest of the CIA.
It's funny I was watching White Men Can't Jump last night and I noticed Woody Harrelson made a joke about the CIA assassinating JFK. He would know given his father was a mob hitman who contracted for the CIA.
youtu.be/qONH80JXYt0
I would recommend Colonel John Hughes-Wilson's book on the JFK assassination. He was the CO of a guy I knew in Moscow so he knows what he talks about, more a behind the desk than in the field though.
The budget was framed as a payrise for all. If the IFS is correct millions of working families will be worse off. Seeking to depict them as scroungers and sneering about "prizes for all" is not the way to sell what the Tories cheered last Wednesday. Experience trumps rhetoric, and if enough voters are adversely affected by the consequences of the cuts the Tories will be in trouble. Clearly, Osborne's gamble is that he has done enough to keep the 37% of voters who voted Tory onside and that Labour will not attract enough of the remaining 63% to do much about it. He could well be right. But I would not bet my house on it. Events, dear boy, events.
It's worth noting that Osborne did not talk about a minimum wage, he talked about a Living Wage. In not using that term in his article David is implicitly accepting that could well have been a significant mistake. A living wage is one you can live on. That is what voters will now expect.
Given that Osborne is on record saying that he was expecting a coalition, the limited moves on low pay can be seen in that context.
It was not restraint, at best it was tactics.
I'm a bit worried that thus surprise election result has gone to some Tory heads. Reminiscent of some Labour folk post 2005.
I think you are wrong. Most Tories are probably very glad that after 5 yrs of hard slog and with more to do that the electorate was sensible enough to ;- a) make sure a terrible opposition was not allowed to win and b) that as a consequence of that the Tories get 5 more years. Undoubtedly there is lots of fun looking at the election for new Labour leader from the poor list of candidates, and much amusement at Osborne parking his tanks on Labour's lawn.
That's where we are now and from now on its events dear boy events. Labour are at present in no position to win in 2020. They have a lot to do and economic credibility once lost is not regained overnight.
Amazing how quickly some people forget that the Tories did not win a majority five years ago. And for "economic credibility" read "the perpetuation of social injustice and the intensification of inequality". But most Peebies seem to think that even to care about those things is a sign of intense addiction to vice.
You do realise that inequality is the lowest since 1980?
How are you measuring inequality? As as far as I'm aware there's been not tumultuous plunge in the UK's Gini coefficient.
Joining in with Richard Tyndall - the T&S changes for contractors are causing huge trauma. One colleague of mine at the moment is living away from home during the week as it's too far to commute. When the changes kick in, he's screwed. He has to abandon this client and any other client further away than commuting distance. I'm concerned as well; I did select my current house location very carefully to maximise opportunities (obviously, when you're not a permanent employee somewhere, you can't rely on finding work in a particular area, so I maximised the number of areas available), but last time I was between contracts, I explored two out of range (rent/hotel during the week and return to family for weekend) before finding my current contract in range.
From next year, that option's gone. My chances of finding myself out of contract for long enough to break me have just increased significantly; all it needs now is a localised downturn.
Contractors (in my experience) are less annoyed about the dividends taxation blow than this - this one hacks crudely at opportunities to work.
A more cynical man than me would wonder out loud whether MPs are now going to have to pay tax on their perk of having a second home allowance. After all, they've got 5-year contracts, so they're in far more secure circumstances than us, and the rationale for that accommodation is exactly the same as for us.
Excuse my stupidity if i have missed something massive here, but aren't contract rates just going to go up wholesale in order to cover the loss of income of 20% of travel costs?
No. For most consultants/contractors the idea that you could simply increase your rates by that 20% of costs (say in my case 6 or 7% of overall contract cost) is ludicrous. This whole change will be soaked up by the contractors. And of course it will be soaked up because short of giving up entirely there is nothing they can do about it.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this Richard but will you not still be able to set your actual costs against taxable income? So if you get a subsistance allowance of £50 but in fact spent £20 on your meal you would effectively pay tax on the £30?
If that is right it seems to close a tax loophole which meant many were getting "reimbursed" in tax free income. Has he gone further than this?
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
England looking a bit long if anything at 1.5 in the test, I've got all my green on them at any rate.
Agreed, although I'm pretty much done with this Test having spent yesterday following the draw price around from 4 to 38.
The England price will drift slowly as the runs go up, then come in tightly (probably too much if yesterday's movements are anything to go by) each time a wicket goes down. Amazed that Betfair have matched GBP14,500,000 on this match, so far!
Another area which Osbo has attacked is shifting the taxation of "Carried Interest" on venture capital and hedge funds from being taxed as capital gains rates to the higher income tax rates:
At this rate the only folks who are going to be happy with this budget once the dust has settled are rich pensioners with £1 million properties to pass on to their children !!
About time too. That was one of the most iniquitous abuses of the capital gains system: I've had partners claim, straight-faced, that they were investing not being remunerated for their work. Bollocks
As long as these "tougher rules" are actually implemented with teeth then I can only applaud Osborne. One of the most nakedly obvious abuses of the current tax system.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
Would you be better off under IR35 and being taxed as an employee?
From what I've read of the change it's designed to clamp down on expenses that an employee wouldn't be able to claim.
That poses an interesting question for the unions - are they still pro-In? If Cameron is successful, surely they'd be more likely to advise BOOing instead?
If unions and UKIP are both saying BOO then that surely is curtains for BOO? If Cameron is successful as the Times suggests then punters should start putting their money on IN.
Excuse my stupidity if i have missed something massive here, but aren't contract rates just going to go up wholesale in order to cover the loss of income of 20% of travel costs?
No. For most consultants/contractors the idea that you could simply increase your rates by that 20% of costs (say in my case 6 or 7% of overall contract cost) is ludicrous. This whole change will be soaked up by the contractors. And of course it will be soaked up because short of giving up entirely there is nothing they can do about it.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this Richard but will you not still be able to set your actual costs against taxable income? So if you get a subsistance allowance of £50 but in fact spent £20 on your meal you would effectively pay tax on the £30?
If that is right it seems to close a tax loophole which meant many were getting "reimbursed" in tax free income. Has he gone further than this?
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
Indeed, so do most of us, so why the tax on actual expenses? Any ideas what the supposed abuse they are trying to clamp down is here, are people staying in accommodation owned by the employment agency and getting receipts as if it were the Ritz?
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
Would you be better off under IR35 and being taxed as an employee?
From what I've read of the change it's designed to clamp down on expenses that an employee wouldn't be able to claim.
I can't work as an employee because the nature of my business is such that it is all short term contracts of a few months at most and sometimes there are several contracts running side by side Besides most companies will not accept anyone who is not a limited company themselves as it protects them from any liability. All liability rests with my company.
Excuse my stupidity if i have missed something massive here, but aren't contract rates just going to go up wholesale in order to cover the loss of income of 20% of travel costs?
No. For most consultants/contractors the idea that you could simply increase your rates by that 20% of costs (say in my case 6 or 7% of overall contract cost) is ludicrous. This whole change will be soaked up by the contractors. And of course it will be soaked up because short of giving up entirely there is nothing they can do about it.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this Richard but will you not still be able to set your actual costs against taxable income? So if you get a subsistance allowance of £50 but in fact spent £20 on your meal you would effectively pay tax on the £30?
If that is right it seems to close a tax loophole which meant many were getting "reimbursed" in tax free income. Has he gone further than this?
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
Indeed, so do most of us, so why the tax on actual expenses? Any ideas what the supposed abuse they are trying to clamp down is here, are people staying in accommodation owned by the employment agency and getting receipts as if it were the Ritz?
No idea. What you can claim for from the client is usually very tightly controlled anyway. They are far more interested in limiting expense amounts than the tax man would be for obvious reasons so I don't really get what the intent could be except to target an easy source of increased revenue which cannot be prevented short of giving up work. It is in effect an additional employment tax.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
Would you be better off under IR35 and being taxed as an employee?
From what I've read of the change it's designed to clamp down on expenses that an employee wouldn't be able to claim.
I can't work as an employee because the nature of my business is such that it is all short term contracts of a few months at most and sometimes there are several contracts running side by side Besides most companies will not accept anyone who is not a limited company themselves as it protects them from any liability. All liability rests with my company.
If that's the case I don't think you'll be affected anyway based on this interpretation of the changes:
Excuse my stupidity if i have missed something massive here, but aren't contract rates just going to go up wholesale in order to cover the loss of income of 20% of travel costs?
No. For most consultants/contractors the idea that you could simply increase your rates by that 20% of costs (say in my case 6 or 7% of overall contract cost) is ludicrous. This whole change will be soaked up by the contractors. And of course it will be soaked up because short of giving up entirely there is nothing they can do about it.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this Richard but will you not still be able to set your actual costs against taxable income? So if you get a subsistance allowance of £50 but in fact spent £20 on your meal you would effectively pay tax on the £30?
If that is right it seems to close a tax loophole which meant many were getting "reimbursed" in tax free income. Has he gone further than this?
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
Indeed, so do most of us, so why the tax on actual expenses? Any ideas what the supposed abuse they are trying to clamp down is here, are people staying in accommodation owned by the employment agency and getting receipts as if it were the Ritz?
No idea. What you can claim for from the client is usually very tightly controlled anyway. They are far more interested in limiting expense amounts than the tax man would be for obvious reasons so I don't really get what the intent could be except to target an easy source of increased revenue which cannot be prevented short of giving up work. It is in effect an additional employment tax.
So true about the customer limiting contractor expenses - not many pay business class or 4* accommodation any more that's for sure. Do they expect me to relocate my family on the basis of a 3 month contract in a different city? What does the abuse they are trying to stop look like in the real world, is this going to be IR35 all over again?
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
Would you be better off under IR35 and being taxed as an employee?
From what I've read of the change it's designed to clamp down on expenses that an employee wouldn't be able to claim.
I can't work as an employee because the nature of my business is such that it is all short term contracts of a few months at most and sometimes there are several contracts running side by side Besides most companies will not accept anyone who is not a limited company themselves as it protects them from any liability. All liability rests with my company.
If that's the case I don't think you'll be affected anyway based on this interpretation of the changes:
Useful link, thanks. So it seems that people are setting up companies providing contractors so that the contractors themselves don't need to incorporate, be subject to IR35 etc. These contractors are technically employees of the umbrella company while actually being independent contractors in all but name. Does seem like the govt are trying to catch a mouse with an elephant-sized net though, hope they think through this and listen to those involved before they implement it though.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
If they are being treated as income though, won't you be able to offset them as an allowable expense of your business?
Fee = £100 Reimbursed expenses = £50 Total income = £150
Operating expenses = £50
Profit = £100 Tax @ 20% = £20 Net Income = £80
Hence all it means is that rather having to justify expenses to your client you need to justify them to HMRC. So more paperwork, and certain areas - such as subsistence - will be disallowed.
But surely not as bad as all that? The caveat is that I haven't actually read the details of the change! But if you are a limited company it seems very unlikely that they would treat something as income but not allow an offset of genuine expenses
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
Would you be better off under IR35 and being taxed as an employee?
From what I've read of the change it's designed to clamp down on expenses that an employee wouldn't be able to claim.
I can't work as an employee because the nature of my business is such that it is all short term contracts of a few months at most and sometimes there are several contracts running side by side Besides most companies will not accept anyone who is not a limited company themselves as it protects them from any liability. All liability rests with my company.
If that's the case I don't think you'll be affected anyway based on this interpretation of the changes:
That was how this was interpreted last year but the latest advice is that the remit has been extended to include PSCs - service companies like mine - which do not fall anywhere near the IR35 rules but which are to be targeted by these new rules.
When I started my company many years ago I sought out an accountancy firm that would always keep me on the straight and narrow as far as tax was concerned. I like going to bed at night knowing that if the tax man come knocking he will find everything well on the side of legal and proper. Their advice is that this will hit companies like mine so I have to be prepared for the worst.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
Hence all it means is that rather having to justify expenses to your client you need to justify them to HMRC. So more paperwork, and certain areas - such as subsistence - will be disallowed.
But surely not as bad as all that? The caveat is that I haven't actually read the details of the change! But if you are a limited company it seems very unlikely that they would treat something as income but not allow an offset of genuine expenses
Yes, but if you work consecutive contracts (3 months for one client full time, followed by 3 months for another etc) then a single-employee limited company would be caught by IR35 and taxed on the £100 as if it were PAYE income, with travel and accommodation no longer being permitted expenses. That's how I read it anyway. Some more digging and a meeting with the accountant coming up in the near future I fear.
You mean you are not happy that a '£1.8bn loophole' has been plugged? As for '£1m properties' - you are either stupid or devious or possibly both. Only properties up to £1m are being (slowly) exempt from IHT. Truly rich people with properties over £1m sadly for them will still have to pay. So the great beneficiaries really are relatively normal people who through no fault of their own other than the onward march of inflation live in properties less than £1m.
On the contrary I'm perfectly happy for this loophole to be plugged, however I fear nothing like £1.8 Billion will ever be collected from these guys. I'm sure the City's top legal and accounting minds are already dreaming up ways around this. The question which springs to my mind is why the Coalition didn't bring this in 5 years ago?
This sentence strikes me in particular: Interpreting and upholding that political tradition will look different in any given era.
IMHO this is where the Labour Party are missing the tide. Your statement applies to any political tradition and Labour haven't carried it out. That's why they come across as political dinosaurs.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
Would you be better off under IR35 and being taxed as an employee?
From what I've read of the change it's designed to clamp down on expenses that an employee wouldn't be able to claim.
I can't work as an employee because the nature of my business is such that it is all short term contracts of a few months at most and sometimes there are several contracts running side by side Besides most companies will not accept anyone who is not a limited company themselves as it protects them from any liability. All liability rests with my company.
If that's the case I don't think you'll be affected anyway based on this interpretation of the changes:
That was how this was interpreted last year but the latest advice is that the remit has been extended to include PSCs - service companies like mine - which do not fall anywhere near the IR35 rules but which are to be targeted by these new rules.
Yes, here's the consultation document. It seems to boil down to the definition of 'ordinary commuting'. They're arguing that if you have a short-term contract at a single location then you're effectively a temporary agency worker and so can't get relief for commuting to work.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
If they are being treated as income though, won't you be able to offset them as an allowable expense of your business?
Fee = £100 Reimbursed expenses = £50 Total income = £150
Operating expenses = £50
Profit = £100 Tax @ 20% = £20 Net Income = £80
Hence all it means is that rather having to justify expenses to your client you need to justify them to HMRC. So more paperwork, and certain areas - such as subsistence - will be disallowed.
But surely not as bad as all that? The caveat is that I haven't actually read the details of the change! But if you are a limited company it seems very unlikely that they would treat something as income but not allow an offset of genuine expenses
Even now that is not the way it is interpreted if a contract lasts more than 24 months. The travel and hotel expenses etc are counted as a perk and therefore subject to tax as income to the individual. That has been the way for many years. Thankfully it does not apply to me as my contracts are always much shower than that but all the commentary and analysis I have seen so far has mentioned removing the 24 month proviso so I am thinking that this will apply to normal receipted expenses.
This is why I have an accountant to keep me straight.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't run any of my contracts on per diem or fixed amounts for expenses. Only receiptable expenses reimbursed by the client. So a £100 rail ticket is charged to the client at £100 or a £ 10 meal is charged at £10. The problem is that I will now have to pay £40 and £4 tax respectively on those receipts.
Would you be better off under IR35 and being taxed as an employee?
From what I've read of the change it's designed to clamp down on expenses that an employee wouldn't be able to claim.
I can't work as an employee because the nature of my business is such that it is all short term contracts of a few months at most and sometimes there are several contracts running side by side Besides most companies will not accept anyone who is not a limited company themselves as it protects them from any liability. All liability rests with my company.
If that's the case I don't think you'll be affected anyway based on this interpretation of the changes:
That was how this was interpreted last year but the latest advice is that the remit has been extended to include PSCs - service companies like mine - which do not fall anywhere near the IR35 rules but which are to be targeted by these new rules.
Yes, here's the consultation document. It seems to boil down to the definition of 'ordinary commuting'. They're arguing that if you have a short-term contract at a single location then you're effectively a temporary agency worker and so can't get relief for commuting to work.
Having several contracts side by side looks like a foolproof way not to be caught in this to me.
no its not from page 22 of the document
Work on more than One Engagement For those who work on more than one engagement through an employment intermediary and who are under supervision, direction or control at each of these engagements, travel and subsistence tax relief will not be available for travel between home and any of their engagements. Neither will travel between the workplaces of separate engagements be eligible for travel and subsistence relief. This approach is in line with that set out for employees with two employments
You mean you are not happy that a '£1.8bn loophole' has been plugged? As for '£1m properties' - you are either stupid or devious or possibly both. Only properties up to £1m are being (slowly) exempt from IHT. Truly rich people with properties over £1m sadly for them will still have to pay. So the great beneficiaries really are relatively normal people who through no fault of their own other than the onward march of inflation live in properties less than £1m.
On the contrary I'm perfectly happy for this loophole to be plugged, however I fear nothing like £1.8 Billion will ever be collected from these guys. I'm sure the City's top legal and accounting minds are already dreaming up ways around this. The question which springs to my mind is why the Coalition didn't bring this in 5 years ago?
Governments of all shapes and colours have forever been playing cat and mouse with guys like this. They are intelligent risk takers with armies of the best lawyers and accountants; they see taxes as getting in the way of profits, minimising them as winning at the big game they play.
Cyber abuse of Andy Murray and his mum continuing, I'm sure like most public figures they'll just ignore it instead of whinging about it - Daily Mail headline tomorrow:
Option A - Vile Cyberunionist abuse of Andy and Judy Murray. Option B - Andy Murray loses and is subject to fair criticism from Cyberunionists. Option C - Vile Cybernats pretend to be Cyberunionists and abuse the Murray's.
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Thats because you are an idiot. Indeed so idiotic that you do not realise that its all being done at the behest of the CIA.
The budget is a disaster who actually anybody who is a fiscal conservative or a libertarian.Unshackled by not being in coalition with the Lib Dems Osborne had the opportunity to either seriously tackle Britain`s huge debt problems or to simplify Britain`s hugely complicated tax/benefits or both.He has done neither and when Britain falls back into into the next recession Osborne will be exposed as one of the worst chancellors ever.The same people cheering him on now are the same who were claiming Gordon Brown walked on on water prior to the financial crisis without actually noticing the Brown had started to believe his own fantasy hype of `no more boom and bust`.If Labour have any brains they will adopt a strategy that the next recession will happen before the 2020 election and if it does Labour will win a landslide victory in 2020.
There is a lot of truth in that, I don't understand the inheritance tax changes.
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
Thats because you are an idiot. Indeed so idiotic that you do not realise that its all being done at the behest of the CIA.
Comments
The obvious answer to your conundrum is for Cameron to carry on for another election campaign, and it may be there would be few complaints as things stand now if he did. But assuming he is right to not do so - and I think long term he is right - then a single term continuity Osborne premiership would be more than viable (unless your name is Boris). All of this depends on the nation appreciating and benefiting from the move away from a benefits culture and I have to say I am quite surprised at the astuteness of the way it is being presented. The carrot of course in 2019-20 will/would be tax cuts.
All this discount Labour - and this may not be wise. However for as long as Labour persist in learning nothing and rely on the nit picking of the IFS's desperation to find losers then the biggest loser will be them.
FWIW I still think the biggest loser from this budget is the BBC, a loss which they have compounded by behaving like charity cold-callers.
I'm concerned as well; I did select my current house location very carefully to maximise opportunities (obviously, when you're not a permanent employee somewhere, you can't rely on finding work in a particular area, so I maximised the number of areas available), but last time I was between contracts, I explored two out of range (rent/hotel during the week and return to family for weekend) before finding my current contract in range.
From next year, that option's gone. My chances of finding myself out of contract for long enough to break me have just increased significantly; all it needs now is a localised downturn.
Contractors (in my experience) are less annoyed about the dividends taxation blow than this - this one hacks crudely at opportunities to work.
A more cynical man than me would wonder out loud whether MPs are now going to have to pay tax on their perk of having a second home allowance. After all, they've got 5-year contracts, so they're in far more secure circumstances than us, and the rationale for that accommodation is exactly the same as for us.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442693/Employment_Intermediaries_and_Tax_Relief_for_Travel_and_Subsistence_-_Consultation_Document.pdf
Overseas is exempt (at least in the consultation).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/33490250
Not sure Germany will return, but we'll see.
It depends on the luck of the location. Plus, each client now has to compete with fewer others for the pool of freelancers - the freelancers will be more restricted as to where they can reach. Without the option of overnighting, your range drops hugely. To get a role in, say, Leicester, someone from London would have to either pitch their fee a lot higher than someone from Leicester, or take a big effective drop in remuneration. To the point where it could well be unsustainable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsGYh8AacgY
By 2020 Cameron will have been in power as long as Blair was when he left and longer than any other postwar PM except Thatcher. 1 year after her tenth anniversary in No 10 she was ousted by her own party in a bitter battle which it took over a decade to recover from, Cameron knows that and will not stay beyond his peak
If you read the articles then you might learn something.
I agree the proposed tax on travel expenses seems ill though through though.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11727036/Budget-2015-Private-equity-managers-to-fork-out-1.8bn-more-in-tax-as-loophole-is-tightened.html
At this rate the only folks who are going to be happy with this budget once the dust has settled are rich pensioners with £1 million properties to pass on to their children !!
Labour First said Mr Corbyn - who is seen as the most left-wing candidate in the race - would "destroy Labour's chances of electability".
The group has urged members to vote for other candidates to prevent Mr Corbyn winning Constituency Labour Party nominations, known as CLPs.......
In a newsletter emailed to members, Labour First said there was support for the three other leadership contenders.
Group secretary Luke Akehurst said: "We clearly do not share Jeremy Corbyn's politics and believe these would destroy Labour's chances of electability.
"We would therefore encourage supporters of Andy, Yvette and Liz to transfer votes to each other at CLP nomination meetings so that as few CLPs as possible make supporting nominations for Jeremy."
Constituency Labour parties have until 31 July to make nominations for a candidate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33490959
I pointed out last night that raising the IHT threshold is perfectly reasonable since it is aimed at protecting the principal asset of most normal people, an asset that was never intended to be caught in the net in the first place. It is governments of all stripes which have overseen house price inflation and not indexed the IHT. Home owners are not guilty of some secret scam! Taxing the very rich on the way they have managed to accumulate assets via whatever opportunistic means is one thing; taxing the ordinary hardworking well meaning public, 'til their coffin nails pop out is disgusting.
Parents work hard to bring benefits to their children and as such we help those that come after us. Plus we should expect children to take responsibility for looking after their aged elders and not palmed off to the state; the fact that they can benefit a bit more from the inheritance from their parents should be well earned in the end.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/07/boris-javid-and-osborne-battle-it-out-to-lead-our-future-leadership-survey.html
Certainly Osborne, should he choose to run, would be a leading contender but I think the dynamic is the wrong way round: people become Chancellor because they are political big beasts; they don't become big beasts just because they're chancellor, though it does help.
This is a good thing. I like the shape and feel of pax Osbornia. Socially liberal, fiscally dry, aspirational but with a firm social floor, I think it has a lot going for it. There is still so much to do. The deficit, the trade balance, housing, the poor state of our infrastructure. More than enough there to keep Tories busy for another decade.
Does Labour have anything useful to say about the remaining problems? Probably not.
As for '£1m properties' - you are either stupid or devious or possibly both.
Only properties up to £1m are being (slowly) exempt from IHT. Truly rich people with properties over £1m sadly for them will still have to pay. So the great beneficiaries really are relatively normal people who through no fault of their own other than the onward march of inflation live in properties less than £1m.
The move to cut the threshold from £58,000 to £41,000 in the last parliament was much more likely to hit the slightly better off working family, or a fairly average two adult working family.
This time around those £41k-£58k income families are being given improved tax allowances and have nothing left to cut.
Un-squeezing the middle.
The way in which Major became PM in 1990 rather disproves your theory that people don't become big beasts because they become chancellor
That poses an interesting question for the unions - are they still pro-In? If Cameron is successful, surely they'd be more likely to advise BOOing instead?
Macmillan was more of a favourite in 1957, though it would probably be fairer to say that no clear favourite had emerged less than two years into Eden's tenure.
Most likely contenders for the leadership are either younger than or similar in age to Cameron or Osborne. Boris is a couple of years older than Cameron.
I think Mr Hersons article is one of the most astute written on here in a long while - principally about the way the political and social landscape has shifted under us and particularly Labour. He sees beyond the short term blind knee jerk opportunistic nit-picking of Labour's response. Its one thing to be wrong but not to realise it is stupid. Giving the oxygen of publicity to Corbyn is going to hamstring Labour.
But I do disagree with Mr H, in that I think Osborne would not be (certainly is capable of not being) an electorally problematic leader. I do not see Merkel's visage being a barrier to her success.
If that is right it seems to close a tax loophole which meant many were getting "reimbursed" in tax free income. Has he gone further than this?
As for 1995, Major himself said that had Redwood won a few (three?) more votes, he would have stood down. In that circumstance, Heseltine or Portillo wouldn't have needed to defeat Major; the field would already be clear (bar Redwood).
In 1957 out of interest were there any other realistic alternatives to Macmillan, I don't recall Butler being talked of in the same way as he was in 1963?
"When was the last time a younger 'charismatic' figure succeeded an elected PM as his party's leader? Certainly not when Brown succeeded Blair, nor Major Thatcher, nor Callaghan Wilson, nor Home Macmillan. Macmillan, who succeeded Eden, and Eden, who succeeded Churchill had some charisma but neither were exactly young. PMs normally offer some contrast in personality and style to their predecessors and Osborne would do the same
By 2020 Cameron will have been in power as long as Blair was when he left and longer than any other postwar PM except Thatcher. 1 year after her tenth anniversary in No 10 she was ousted by her own party in a bitter battle which it took over a decade to recover from, Cameron knows that and will not stay beyond his peak
As I said - I think its probably right for Cameron to retire before the 2020 election. It is Mr Herdson who is making the valid point about Osborne and his image being against him. That being so then how does he fit in with any likely successor?
Most likely contenders for the leadership are either younger than or similar in age to Cameron or Osborne. Boris is a couple of years older than Cameron.
I think Mr Hersons article is one of the most astute written on here in a long while - principally about the way the political and social landscape has shifted under us and particularly Labour. He sees beyond the short term blind knee jerk opportunistic nit-picking of Labour's response. Its one thing to be wrong but not to realise it is stupid. Giving the oxygen of publicity to Corbyn is going to hamstring Labour.
But I do disagree with Mr H, in that I think Osborne would not be (certainly is capable of not being) an electorally problematic leader. I do not see Merkel's visage being a barrier to her success. "
Agree on Cameron. On Osborne's image I think Merkel has at least some likeability even if she lacks charisma and has so often been pointed out is often seen as 'the mother' of Germany. Osborne will never be 'the father' of the UK. However even uncharismatic and dislikeable figures can win elections in office if their opponent is equally dislikeable and uncharismatic or ideologically extreme, as Nixon beat McGovern for instance. If Labour are mad enough to elect Corbyn I could see even Osborne beating him short of an global depression in a way I would find it more difficult to see him beating Burnham, Kendall or Cooper.
https://youtu.be/qONH80JXYt0
I would recommend Colonel John Hughes-Wilson's book on the JFK assassination. He was the CO of a guy I knew in Moscow so he knows what he talks about, more a behind the desk than in the field though.
At least the govt has the sense to have a consultation phase on this which should allow representation from those affected adversely. Eg. If I work on a 3 month contract in a city 200 miles from home, of course I'm not going to commute daily - I'll get a B&B nearby and commute weekly.
This is different from the companies and public sector organisations who outsource whole departments and functions.
"I think that's a little too deterministic. Heseltine could easily have followed Thatcher had she not stood down. He, or Portillo, could have followed Major in 1995 but for a handful of votes. Butler - then DPM without portfolio - could have succeeded Macmillan.
Certainly Osborne, should he choose to run, would be a leading contender but I think the dynamic is the wrong way round: people become Chancellor because they are political big beasts; they don't become big beasts just because they're chancellor, though it does help.
Thatcher appointed Major as Chancellor in part to stop Heseltine, which he ultimately did, even if the contest was not at a time of her choosing. In 1995 neither Heseltine nor Portillo had the votes to defeat PM Major and Major comfortably beat Redwood. Butler could have succeeded Macmillan but he did not, instead the post went to the more senior Home even if that was at a time when the Tories still took 'soundings' on their next leader.
The way in which Major became PM in 1990 rather disproves your theory that people don't become big beasts because they become chancellor
Major won because he was not Heseltine and had Thatcher's backing. His leadership was always tainted, bar a few months in 1992, because he was very few people's first choice: Thatcherites preferred Thatcher and wets preferred Heseltine. He remained in place because no wing was willing to risk the other grabbing the crown. Even so, being chancellor gave him an entry ticket; it didn't make him a big beast in his own right and subsequent events proved him still not to be.
As for 1995, Major himself said that had Redwood won a few (three?) more votes, he would have stood down. In that circumstance, Heseltine or Portillo wouldn't have needed to defeat Major; the field would already be clear" (bar Redwood).
Indeed, but Major was arguably the only person in the Tory Party at that time who could keep the wets and the Thatcherites in the same party. Had Heseltine or Portillo or Redwood become Tory leader there would have been a civil war. Anyone who holds one of the great offices of state or becomes PM or party leader automatically becomes a 'big beast' even if some others may be seen as more personally suited to the role. Major beat Redwood by 218 votes to 89 so in the end got a comfortable enough margin to stay on. Had he not then, as I said, the Tories would have entered a civil war, with Sir James Goldsmith or Blair waiting to feast even further on the carcass had Heseltine or Portillo or Redwood won the resulting leadership election
And we have our own home grown conspiracy - Robert Maxwell being bumped off by Mossad after trying to extort money from the Israeli gov to cover his massive pension fund debts. I wouldn't threaten to blab against Mossad myself. Wasn't the Israeli PM at the time a former Mossad assassin?
Great article Mr Herdson and agree with your conclusion. - However, the reason Osborne will never be Tory leader is not down to his “grating voice and punchable face” which I do not dispute
The England price will drift slowly as the runs go up, then come in tightly (probably too much if yesterday's movements are anything to go by) each time a wicket goes down.
Amazed that Betfair have matched GBP14,500,000 on this match, so far!
I met them a couple of times and although I may have fisagreed with him politically they were always a lovely couple. Really feel for him right now.
From what I've read of the change it's designed to clamp down on expenses that an employee wouldn't be able to claim.
If Cameron is successful as the Times suggests then punters should start putting their money on IN.
http://www.itcontracting.com/budget-2015-travel-and-subsistence-expenses-clampdown/
Do they expect me to relocate my family on the basis of a 3 month contract in a different city?
What does the abuse they are trying to stop look like in the real world, is this going to be IR35 all over again?
Most key wicket of the test I reckon.
i.e. the change is from
Fee = £100
Total Income = £100
Operating expenses = £50
Reimbursed expenses = £50
Net operating expenses = £0
Profit = £100
Tax @ 20% = £20
Net Income = £80
to:
Fee = £100
Reimbursed expenses = £50
Total income = £150
Operating expenses = £50
Profit = £100
Tax @ 20% = £20
Net Income = £80
Hence all it means is that rather having to justify expenses to your client you need to justify them to HMRC. So more paperwork, and certain areas - such as subsistence - will be disallowed.
But surely not as bad as all that? The caveat is that I haven't actually read the details of the change! But if you are a limited company it seems very unlikely that they would treat something as income but not allow an offset of genuine expenses
When I started my company many years ago I sought out an accountancy firm that would always keep me on the straight and narrow as far as tax was concerned. I like going to bed at night knowing that if the tax man come knocking he will find everything well on the side of legal and proper. Their advice is that this will hit companies like mine so I have to be prepared for the worst.
That's how I read it anyway. Some more digging and a meeting with the accountant coming up in the near future I fear.
This sentence strikes me in particular: Interpreting and upholding that political tradition will look different in any given era.
IMHO this is where the Labour Party are missing the tide. Your statement applies to any political tradition and Labour haven't carried it out. That's why they come across as political dinosaurs.
Edited to add: well, they do to me, at any rate.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442693/Employment_Intermediaries_and_Tax_Relief_for_Travel_and_Subsistence_-_Consultation_Document.pdf
Having several contracts side by side looks like a foolproof way not to be caught in this to me.
This is why I have an accountant to keep me straight.
Option A - Vile Cyberunionist abuse of Andy and Judy Murray.
Option B - Andy Murray loses and is subject to fair criticism from Cyberunionists.
Option C - Vile Cybernats pretend to be Cyberunionists and abuse the Murray's.
https://twitter.com/Munchbunch87/status/619825011793240064