Employed staff on £32,000 a year currently pay £6,170, jointly with their employer, compared with £2,300 for the self-employed.
Come on, that is the real story here isn't it.
Well there's an obvious answer: If it's so easy to become self-employed and pay less tax, then they can resign and start their own business.
Increasingly people are doing so - and it is creating a revenue issue for the government. Add to that the whole IR35 mess of people "self employed" by one organisation that HMRC has neither the time nor the resources to deal with properly, and by far the simplest and best solution is to make NI agnostic to the hierarchical structure above the individual.
The "advantage" of self employment is an ability to (quite rightly) decrease taxable income through business related expenses (And also take the 2 or 5k dividend allowance). National insurance is supposed the pot to piss in when you're old and drowning in your own piss. A formerly self employed and employed person are going to need precisely the same care in that situation !
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
Is it offering to stay in the internal market? No? It thinks it can negotiate better deals with the rest of the world? We'll see about that...
It's offering a comprehensive free-trade agreement with the members of the Single Market. We will see if the EU27 want to take up the offer or not. At present, there's a massive mismatch between their claims that they want to be champions of free trade, and their rhetoric on Brexit.
Is it offering to stay in the internal market? No? It thinks it can negotiate better deals with the rest of the world? We'll see about that...
It's offering a comprehensive free-trade agreement with the members of the Single Market. We will see if the EU27 want to take up the offer or not. At present, there's a massive mismatch between their claims that they want to be champions of free trade, and their rhetoric on Brexit.
The only mismatch is between the aspirations of the Brexiteers and their capacities.
Well there's an obvious answer: If it's so easy to become self-employed and pay less tax, then they can resign and start their own business.
That's exactly what they have been doing, especially if they work in the media or in IT, in very large numbers. That's precisely the issue.
It's also very popular with agency lorry drivers. When I was on a national retailer contract with a 3PL, half the drivers were agency and nearly all of those were set up as Ltd.
Mr. B, before test 2 I think Ferrari were around 8 or 10 on Ladbrokes. Would've been better ahead of test 1, of course.
Not sure about that Hamilton bet. He is the likeliest winner, but it's pretty short for a bet that could take eight months to come in.
Unimpressed with Red Bull?
Yes, so far. The Ferrari engine looks good, and the chassis both innovative and relatively sorted; in both cases ahead of the soft drinks boys. Everyone is getting very excited about the lad Verstappen, but (tempting fate) I don't see this being his year.
As far as taking eight months, that's the point of a trading bet. F1 lends itself well to that - if Mercedes are going to crush everyone, that will be evident pretty quickly. If not, the Ferrari bet is tasty.
..essentially the hysteria is solely around Hammond breaking that silly Cameron tax pledge
"That silly tax pledge" might just have been the difference between Cameron winning a majority in 2015 and having to go into coalition with the LD's again. If it swung a few seats then that would be the case.
So if he had not made "that silly pledge" then it is quite possible that we would have not had the Referendum.
So some might think that a pledge that has had such far-reaching consequences isn't just a "silly pledge"
It's odd though. I wasn't even aware of the pledge until the cut and pasting started here. Perhaps I'm alone in that but I remain to be convinced.
I couldn't see anything wrong with the pasty tax making the rules the same for takeaway hot snacks.
Except Greggs whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Osbourne
I couldn't see anything wrong with The Granny tax was miss named and basically sound
Except the media whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Osbourne
I couldn't see anything wrong with The Charity tax which was basically sound
Except the Rich who use a loophole and the Charity sector whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Osbourne
I can't see anything wrong with the NI increase which appears to be well targeted to hit the wealthier harder than the JAMs
Except it will apply to journalists who have whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Hammond
Agree - lets see if May & Hammond are made of sterner stuff than the posh boys....
Those would be the very same "posh boys" you supported wholeheartedly and enthusiastically before they left the stage.
Why don't you go back to droning on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on about child benefit?
I have already poked fun at myself – several times – about that on here this week, entirely unprompted. Where is your sense of humour about your brazen dropping of support for Cam and Ozzy and your similarly inauthentic change of attitude to Brexit? I'm not holding my breath!
Well there's an obvious answer: If it's so easy to become self-employed and pay less tax, then they can resign and start their own business.
That's exactly what they have been doing, especially if they work in the media or in IT, in very large numbers. That's precisely the issue.
But if they go back and work exactly as an employee, then they should be taxed as an employee.
HMRC just doesn't have the resources to police this, and Amazon / Uber can lawyer/ tax accountant up on this to convince a judge (Whose job is to interpret the law correctly, not collect tax) at large expense to the public purse. I am afraid Deliveroo and Hertsmere's lorry drivers have wrecked it for the genuine entrepreneur.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
PAYE comes with a whole load of benefits and security that s/e lacks.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
Truly equalising NI would involve putting self employed NIC up to, IIRC, 25.8%.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
PAYE comes with a whole load of benefits and security that s/e lacks.
Those benefits and security are at the employer's expense not the state though..........
Well there's an obvious answer: If it's so easy to become self-employed and pay less tax, then they can resign and start their own business.
That's exactly what they have been doing, especially if they work in the media or in IT, in very large numbers. That's precisely the issue.
But if they go back and work exactly as an employee, then they should be taxed as an employee.
That is what HMRC are supposed to be stopping. It is illegal under IR35 rules and is the most obvious sign that the system is being played for tax advantage. I have no idea how successful or otherwise HMRC are at stopping this.
But if they go back and work exactly as an employee, then they should be taxed as an employee.
That's what the government is trying to do, but they are going about it in a very heavy-handed way, hitting perfectly legitimate businesses in the process and bringing a huge amount of uncertainty into the tax system. I think the point Pulpstar is making, and I would agree with him, is the same one Phil Hammond made yesterday:
People should have choices about how they work, but those choices should not be driven primarily by differences in tax treatment.
The problem is that the tax system has become so lop-sided that the choice is often driven entirely by the tax treatment. HMRC tries to deal with this by IR35 and other artificial and damaging attempts to stick their fingers in the dyke, rather than tackling the root cause which is the excessive disparity in tax. Yesterday's measure was a tiny attempt at addressing the disparity.
A good debate on the meaning of the poll which must be seen as a disaster for the Tory/Labour unionist cause except by Carlotta who will see it as a setback for Sturgeon and Salmond!!
The real point is that when Salmond triggered Indy ref 1 than he did so on the back of an S3 poll showing independence at almost 30 per cent.
Sturgeon will go to her Conference next week on a poll showing independence at 50 per cent!
The world has changed and it is time to change with it.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
PAYE comes with a whole load of benefits and security that s/e lacks.
Those benefits and security are at the employer's expense not the state though..........
Employers' NICs should be abolished and rolled into income tax because they distort the employee's view of the cost of their employment.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
PAYE comes with a whole load of benefits and security that s/e lacks.
Those benefits and security are at the employer's expense not the state though..........
Employers' NICs should be abolished and rolled into income tax because they distort the employee's view of the cost of their employment.
Blimey. Best of luck passing THAT past the self employed.
apply to journalists who have whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Hammond
Agree - lets see if May & Hammond are made of sterner stuff than the posh boys....
Those would be the very same "posh boys" you supported wholeheartedly and enthusiastically before they left the stage.
Why don't you go back to droning on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on about child benefit?
I have already poked fun at myself – several times – about that on here this week, entirely unprompted. Where is your sense of humour about your brazen dropping of support for Cam and Ozzy and your similarly inauthentic change of attitude to Brexit? I'm not holding my breath!
Good for you. I have noted in the past that I thought Cameron was a good Coalition PM (got the deal done) but had let his electoral victory in 2015 go to his head with the bodged 'deal' and 'Trust me - I'm Dave' referendum in what may yet be one of the biggest mis-steps of a PM in 50 years (Heath's 'who governs Britain? being the next closest). Constrained by the quad Osborne was a reasonable Chancellor but too clever by half. His 'punishment budget' followed by its swift cancellation after the vote emptied him of any credibility. I supported Remain and think leaving the EU a bad idea. However, attempting to subvert the will of the British people is a very much worse idea.....once you start down that path 5% off GDP will be the least of your worries.....Clear enough?
Mr. B, testing times are notoriously devoid of meaning, though.
F1: looks like many races will be one stop.
I'm going by the race sims, FWIW. The ultimate pace of the cars is anyone's guess; I have little doubt that Merc have a fair amount in reserve that they haven't shown (& there are some indications that the same is true of Ferrari).
Blimey. Best of luck passing THAT past the self employed.
Or pensioners...
People with "good" employers would be the least of all by that as one would hope they'd try and keep the costs payroll neutral..... It'd sting the self employed, pensioners and those with employers who simply see it as a ruse to reduce payroll costs.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
... and usually working away from home, so longer commutes or accommodation costs. It's a choice that individuals and companies make, swings and roundabouts with benefits for the country in the flexibility of the workforce.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
..essentially the hysteria is solely around Hammond breaking that silly Cameron tax pledge
"That silly tax pledge" might just have been the difference between Cameron winning a majority in 2015 and having to go into coalition with the LD's again. If it swung a few seats then that would be the case.
So if he had not made "that silly pledge" then it is quite possible that we would have not had the Referendum.
So some might think that a pledge that has had such far-reaching consequences isn't just a "silly pledge"
It's odd though. I wasn't even aware of the pledge until the cut and pasting started here. Perhaps I'm alone in that but I remain to be convinced.
Just because you hadn't heard of the pledge that May/Hammond have broken, doesn't mean it isn't important.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
... and usually working away from home...
You mean like all of the contractors who live in the leafy areas around Teesside and work in... Teesside. Of course, that doesn't stop them claiming their daily commute as business mileage to offset the little bit of tax that they might pay.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
But most people don't want to do it. Not so many permanent staff get the 4 weeks notice and if they do it's generally not very often, many freelancers expect to move on every 3 to 6 months.
Well there's an obvious answer: If it's so easy to become self-employed and pay less tax, then they can resign and start their own business.
That's exactly what they have been doing, especially if they work in the media or in IT, in very large numbers. That's precisely the issue.
But if they go back and work exactly as an employee, then they should be taxed as an employee.
HMRC just doesn't have the resources to police this, and Amazon / Uber can lawyer/ tax accountant up on this to convince a judge (Whose job is to interpret the law correctly, not collect tax) at large expense to the public purse. I am afraid Deliveroo and Hertsmere's lorry drivers have wrecked it for the genuine entrepreneur.
Pulpy, I'm no fan of the arrangement. I used to get quite pissed off when they used to hark on about us PAYE saps. The employer liked it as there was none of the non wage costs to worry about. And they were a lot easier to get rid of when necessary.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
... and usually working away from home...
You mean like all of the contractors who live in the leafy areas around Teesside and work in... Teesside. Of course, that doesn't stop them claiming their daily commute as business mileage to offset the little bit of tax that they might pay.
No, I don't mean those. Some will no doubt be lucky for a while, but the majority of contractors by the nature of the work aren't.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
... and usually working away from home, so longer commutes or accommodation costs. It's a choice that individuals and companies make, swings and roundabouts with benefits for the country in the flexibility of the workforce.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
... and usually working away from home, so longer commutes or accommodation costs. It's a choice that individuals and companies make, swings and roundabouts with benefits for the country in the flexibility of the workforce.
Swings and roundabouts in terms of pensions (++ PAYE), deductible expenses/taxable income (++ S/E), job security (++ PAYE). But NI ought to, and should be based on income declared from employment for tax purposes
The advantages of PAYE only come from the employer anyway - not the state (Though I accept the edge case of if the business goes bust you might then benefit from the state as an employee, certainly not as a contractor)
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
Many employees are on three months' notice (indeed I am). That's really worth quite a lot.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
But most people don't want to do it. Not so many permanent staff get the 4 weeks notice and if they do it's generally not very often, many freelancers expect to move on every 3 to 6 months.
I have seen plenty sat in the same company for years on end. Indeed, it is expected - if a contractor is given a Lead Engineer role in a 2 year EPC contract, the expectation is that they will see it through. Then if the company lands another similar job, that's another two years for them.
But they aren't an employee. No. Definitely not. Despite being full time at one company for 4 years.
apply to journalists who have whipped up a good media storm that could be used to beat the ever popular Hammond
Agree - lets see if May & Hammond are made of sterner stuff than the posh boys....
Those would be the very same "posh boys" you supported wholeheartedly and enthusiastically before they left the stage.
Why don't you go back to droning on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on about child benefit?
I have already poked fun at myself – several times – about that on here this week, entirely unprompted. Where is your sense of humour about your brazen dropping of support for Cam and Ozzy and your similarly inauthentic change of attitude to Brexit? I'm not holding my breath!
Good for you. I have noted in the past that I thought Cameron was a good Coalition PM (got the deal done) but had let his electoral victory in 2015 go to his head with the bodged 'deal' and 'Trust me - I'm Dave' referendum in what may yet be one of the biggest mis-steps of a PM in 50 years (Heath's 'who governs Britain? being the next closest). Constrained by the quad Osborne was a reasonable Chancellor but too clever by half. His 'punishment budget' followed by its swift cancellation after the vote emptied him of any credibility. I supported Remain and think leaving the EU a bad idea. However, attempting to subvert the will of the British people is a very much worse idea.....once you start down that path 5% off GDP will be the least of your worries.....Clear enough?
@Carlotta – clear enough – and fair enough. Thanks.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
Many employees are on three months' notice (indeed I am). That's really worth quite a lot.
Again, that benefit of employment comes from your employer not the state though.
The more I think about it, the more William Glenn's proposal to abolish Employer NI and simply wrap it into income tax seems an eminently fair and sensible suggestion.............
A good debate on the meaning of the poll which must be seen as a disaster for the Tory/Labour unionist cause except by Carlotta who will see it as a setback for Sturgeon and Salmond!!
The real point is that when Salmond triggered Indy ref 1 than he did so on the back of an S3 poll showing independence at almost 30 per cent.
Sturgeon will go to her Conference next week on a poll showing independence at 50 per cent!
The world has changed and it is time to change with it.
Hi Scotslass
You also have Wee Nicky who is a masterclass of a politician and a brilliant campaigner, compared to Wee Eck who is merely an excellent politician and a great campaigner. Worth a point or two, this time around?
Good luck – I wish you and your great country well.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
Many employees are on three months' notice (indeed I am). That's really worth quite a lot.
Again, that benefit of employment comes from your employer not the state though*.
The more I think about it, the more William Glenn's proposal to abolish Employer NI and simply wrap it into income tax seems an eminently fair and sensible suggestion.............
Would that again lead to another tax on work and not on wealth though?
If the government was serious about creating a fair, meritocratic tax system it would look again – and properly – at inheritance. Instead it focuses on clobbering work not unearned wealth.
*P.S. 40% of the economy is in the public sector so your argument, while sound in and of itself, only goes so far
Problem is there are self employed who are genuine and there are self employed who are tax efficient.
The tax efficient are in two distinct groups:
Those who are pushed that way so that the contractor can be tax efficient and avoid employers NI, Amazon? Uber? Delivery drivers?
Those who earn above average incomes and can mitigate tax liability via self employment, payment by dividend etc, the Ken Livingstone or some of the media types, some consultants, GPs?, and I should think some footballers to name a few.
How to moderate the behaviour and collect fair tax from these two groups (or the contractor / employer) without hitting the genuine self employed is the question.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
But most people don't want to do it. Not so many permanent staff get the 4 weeks notice and if they do it's generally not very often, many freelancers expect to move on every 3 to 6 months.
I have seen plenty sat in the same company for years on end. Indeed, it is expected - if a contractor is given a Lead Engineer role in a 2 year EPC contract, the expectation is that they will see it through. Then if the company lands another similar job, that's another two years for them.
But they aren't an employee. No. Definitely not. Despite being full time at one company for 4 years.
OK, I'm going to stop banging on about this now.
Then HMRC need to take a long hard look at the goings-on at your company. Contractors who have be retained by the same firm for four years are employees under the law. That they haven't been pulled into PAYE is testament to the failure of HMRC to enforce the rules and indeed the brass neck of your directors to risk censure by trying to circumnavigate them.
I don't think this'll happen, but this is a time of strange events*: 1) Sturgeon calls for a referendum before Article 50 negotiations are finished 2) May is unable to stop an 'advisory' referendum and decides better to halt negotiations and hold a proper one 3) Article 50 rescinded, temporarily 4) Scottish referendum, they vote to Leave 5) Article 50 remains suspended whilst the UK separates 6) New election 7) New referendum for England/Wales/Northern Ireland on EU 8) Remain wins, following the trauma (economic etc) of Scottish departure 9) England, Wales, Northern Ireland veto Scottish membership of EU following bitter negotiations
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
PAYE comes with a whole load of benefits and security that s/e lacks.
Those benefits and security are at the employer's expense not the state though..........
Employers' NICs should be abolished and rolled into income tax because they distort the employee's view of the cost of their employment.
There is a good theoretical argument for that. Good luck trying it.
Employed staff on £32,000 a year currently pay £6,170, jointly with their employer, compared with £2,300 for the self-employed.
Come on, that is the real story here isn't it.
When I heard that, the change seemed perfectly fair. Most/All self employed people I now diddle their tax anyway, I thought that was par for the course?
@Bojabob I fully accept the need for there to be a state. I make no distinction between a public and private sector employee in my argument. William Glenn's proposal would actually lead to a tax increase on ALL income earnt between £14 and £43k (Was that the NI employer band ?, sorry I'm not a tax specialist) - and so wouldn't penalise income earnt through work over that earnt through investment say (As happens at the moment).
Blimey. Best of luck passing THAT past the self employed.
Or pensioners...
That of course is once again the elephant in the room. Why should a non-productive individual with an income of, say, £25k, pay substantially less tax than a productive individual earning exactly the same?
But the wailing at the pensioners' tax allowance being *increased* at a rate not quite as fast as that of non-pensioners was loud enough. God know what it'd be like if you suddenly dropped one of the biggest tax rises in history on to their doormat.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
But most people don't want to do it. Not so many permanent staff get the 4 weeks notice and if they do it's generally not very often, many freelancers expect to move on every 3 to 6 months.
I have seen plenty sat in the same company for years on end. Indeed, it is expected - if a contractor is given a Lead Engineer role in a 2 year EPC contract, the expectation is that they will see it through. Then if the company lands another similar job, that's another two years for them.
But they aren't an employee. No. Definitely not. Despite being full time at one company for 4 years.
OK, I'm going to stop banging on about this now.
If contracting is so great why don't more people do it? Maybe they don't have the skills to a sufficient level. However i suspect that they think the hassle and insecurity involved outweighs the benefits. Thinking about it from the viewpoint of what is good for the country, if a company can get a person with a particular skill who is willing to come from a different part of the country for a project lasting say 6 months and then can be got rid of easily then that is advantageous. Making contracting less beneficial will result in fewer people doing it and that may disadvantage the economy. If a contractor is in one place for 4 years then the management should make him permanent or replace him with a permanent member of staff.
But the author of Article 50 has already ridiculed claims that the treaty clause cannot be stopped once it has been invoked.
Lord Kerr told peers during a parliamentary session last month: "If, having looked into abyss, we changed our minds about withdrawal, we certainly could - and no-one in Brussels could stop us."
@AlastairMeeks It is a cute tactic by the EU to leave the door open for rejoining at any point in the two year negotiation phase.
Emphasises the point that we are leaving through choice, and not being kicked out. It may also strengthen their position in post break up arbitration.......
..essentially the hysteria is solely around Hammond breaking that silly Cameron tax pledge
"That silly tax pledge" might just have been the difference between Cameron winning a majority in 2015 and having to go into coalition with the LD's again. If it swung a few seats then that would be the case.
So if he had not made "that silly pledge" then it is quite possible that we would have not had the Referendum.
So some might think that a pledge that has had such far-reaching consequences isn't just a "silly pledge"
It's odd though. I wasn't even aware of the pledge until the cut and pasting started here. Perhaps I'm alone in that but I remain to be convinced.
Just because you hadn't heard of the pledge that May/Hammond have broken, doesn't mean it isn't important.
And I didn't say that so don't put words in my mouth. It was a response to the idea that it swung constituencies at the last General Election. Possible but lacking evidence.
You start with a given level of profit to pay to yourself. For a company, you can set how much is paid in salary (remembering that you have to gross it up by Employer's NI) and it assumes the rest is paid by dividend. Here's what you get if you are a BBC luvvie with £100K to pay yourself (2016/2017 tax rules):
Employee paid entirely under PAYE:
To distribute: £100K Employer's NI: (£11.2K) Net nominal Salary: £88.8K Employee NI: (£5.1K) PAYE tax on salary (£24.7K) Net take-home pay: £59K
Pay yourself mainly by dividends:
To distribute: £100K Salary £11K (to use up the personal allowance) Employer's NI: (£0.4K) Employee NI: (£0.35K) Corporation tax: (£17.7K) Dividend payable: £70.9K Tax on dividend (£14.7K) Net take-home pay: £67K
(The self-employed case is similar)
So under PAYE you are getting about £8K more than if you can use a service company or be self-employed, an effective tax rate of 41%, rather than 33%.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
PAYE comes with a whole load of benefits and security that s/e lacks.
Those benefits and security are at the employer's expense not the state though..........
Employers' NICs should be abolished and rolled into income tax because they distort the employee's view of the cost of their employment.
There is a good theoretical argument for that. Good luck trying it.
Yes. Absolutely toxic politically and is in any case yet another tax on work and not on wealth.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
Many employees are on three months' notice (indeed I am). That's really worth quite a lot.
Again, that benefit of employment comes from your employer not the state though*.
The more I think about it, the more William Glenn's proposal to abolish Employer NI and simply wrap it into income tax seems an eminently fair and sensible suggestion.............
Would that again lead to another tax on work and not on wealth though?
If the government was serious about creating a fair, meritocratic tax system it would look again – and properly – at inheritance. Instead it focuses on clobbering work not unearned wealth.
*P.S. 40% of the economy is in the public sector so your argument, while sound in and of itself, only goes so far
The amount to be raised from taxing inheritance is pretty limited, and the emotional aspect makes it politically difficult. A tax on the unimproved value of land is a genuinely interesting idea though. Progressive, non-distortionary, and difficult to avoid or evade.
You start with a given level of profit to pay to yourself. For a company, you can set how much is paid in salary (remembering that you have to gross it up by Employer's NI) and it assumes the rest is paid by dividend. Here's what you get if you are a BBC luvvie with £100K to pay yourself (2016/2017 tax rules):
Employee paid entirely under PAYE:
To distribute: £100K Employer's NI: (£11.2K) Net nominal Salary: £88.8K Employee NI: (£5.1K) PAYE tax on salary (£24.7K) Net take-home pay: £59K
Pay yourself mainly by dividends:
To distribute: £100K Salary £11K (to use up the personal allowance) Employer's NI: (£0.4K) Employee NI: (£0.35K) Corporation tax: (£17.7K) Dividend payable: £70.9K) Tax on dividend (£14.7K) Net take-home pay: £67K
(The self-employed case is similar)
So under PAYE you are paying about £8K more than if you can use a service company or be self-employed, an effective tax rate of 41%, rather than 33%.
The tax system is broken.
Potentially Hammond has opened Pandora's box with all this. Maybe deliberately?
The problem it seems to me is there are two types of dividend. The sort that a proper shareholder makes in say at PLC and the sort which is used to pay a single director in a self-employed kind of scenario. The latter might be taxed more like income but how do you differentiate.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
Many employees are on three months' notice (indeed I am). That's really worth quite a lot.
Again, that benefit of employment comes from your employer not the state though*.
The more I think about it, the more William Glenn's proposal to abolish Employer NI and simply wrap it into income tax seems an eminently fair and sensible suggestion.............
Would that again lead to another tax on work and not on wealth though?
If the government was serious about creating a fair, meritocratic tax system it would look again – and properly – at inheritance. Instead it focuses on clobbering work not unearned wealth.
*P.S. 40% of the economy is in the public sector so your argument, while sound in and of itself, only goes so far
The amount to be raised from taxing inheritance is pretty limited, and the emotional aspect makes it politically difficult. A tax on the unimproved value of land is a genuinely interesting idea though. Progressive, non-distortionary, and difficult to avoid or evade.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
Many employees are on three months' notice (indeed I am). That's really worth quite a lot.
Again, that benefit of employment comes from your employer not the state though*.
The more I think about it, the more William Glenn's proposal to abolish Employer NI and simply wrap it into income tax seems an eminently fair and sensible suggestion.............
Would that again lead to another tax on work and not on wealth though?
If the government was serious about creating a fair, meritocratic tax system it would look again – and properly – at inheritance. Instead it focuses on clobbering work not unearned wealth.
*P.S. 40% of the economy is in the public sector so your argument, while sound in and of itself, only goes so far
The amount to be raised from taxing inheritance is pretty limited, and the emotional aspect makes it politically difficult. A tax on the unimproved value of land is a genuinely interesting idea though. Progressive, non-distortionary, and difficult to avoid or evade.
My suggestion for inheritance tax is that it is tax free for the person who leaves the money, but the person receiving the inheritance is taxed incurs a very high tax on whatever they leave up to that amount
So
I leave my son £10m He receives £10m He leaves his son £20m His son receives £15m
That should encourage those left a decent whack to make it work for them, and would kill the family fortune of those who dont
OGH: "With the second BREXIT bill defeat in the Lords, the sacking of Michael Heseltine and the reception the budget has got this has probably been the worst week of Theresa May’s government."
Without a doubt and I fully expect the next batch of polls to demonstrate precisely that.
You start with a given level of profit to pay to yourself. For a company, you can set how much is paid in salary (remembering that you have to gross it up by Employer's NI) and it assumes the rest is paid by dividend. Here's what you get if you are a BBC luvvie with £100K to pay yourself (2016/2017 tax rules):
Employee paid entirely under PAYE:
To distribute: £100K Employer's NI: (£11.2K) Net nominal Salary: £88.8K Employee NI: (£5.1K) PAYE tax on salary (£24.7K) Net take-home pay: £59K
Pay yourself mainly by dividends:
To distribute: £100K Salary £11K (to use up the personal allowance) Employer's NI: (£0.4K) Employee NI: (£0.35K) Corporation tax: (£17.7K) Dividend payable: £70.9K) Tax on dividend (£14.7K) Net take-home pay: £67K
(The self-employed case is similar)
So under PAYE you are paying about £8K more than if you can use a service company or be self-employed, an effective tax rate of 41%, rather than 33%.
The tax system is broken.
Potentially Hammond has opened Pandora's box with all this. Maybe deliberately?
The problem it seems to me is there are two types of dividend. The sort that a proper shareholder makes in say at PLC and the sort which is used to pay a single director in a self-employed kind of scenario. The latter might be taxed more like income but how do you differentiate.
By having a rate that is 20% tax where total dividends paid are up to 7.5% of the company profit and 40% tax rate if the dividend is over 7.5% of the company profit, for example.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
PAYE comes with a whole load of benefits and security that s/e lacks.
Those benefits and security are at the employer's expense not the state though..........
Employers' NICs should be abolished and rolled into income tax because they distort the employee's view of the cost of their employment.
There is a good theoretical argument for that. Good luck trying it.
Yes. Absolutely toxic politically and is in any case yet another tax on work and not on wealth.
It may be toxic but not because it's a tax on work - it isn't. It would shift the burden away from earned income.
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
Many employees are on three months' notice (indeed I am). That's really worth quite a lot.
Again, that benefit of employment comes from your employer not the state though*.
The more I think about it, the more William Glenn's proposal to abolish Employer NI and simply wrap it into income tax seems an eminently fair and sensible suggestion.............
Would that again lead to another tax on work and not on wealth though?
If the government was serious about creating a fair, meritocratic tax system it would look again – and properly – at inheritance. Instead it focuses on clobbering work not unearned wealth.
*P.S. 40% of the economy is in the public sector so your argument, while sound in and of itself, only goes so far
The amount to be raised from taxing inheritance is pretty limited, and the emotional aspect makes it politically difficult. A tax on the unimproved value of land is a genuinely interesting idea though. Progressive, non-distortionary, and difficult to avoid or evade.
My suggestion for inheritance tax is that it is tax free for the person who leaves the money, but the person receiving the inheritance is taxed incurs a very high tax on whatever they leave up to that amount
So
I leave my son £10m He receives £10m He leaves his son £20m His son receives £15m
That should encourage those left a decent whack to make it work for them, and would kill the family fortune of those who dont
Do you have a son to leave your worldly riches too :> ?
To leave the EU we have to write a letter saying: "We want to leave, give us Article 50 and half the house, you bastard."
To stay in the EU we have to write a letter saying: "I love you."
Given the EU's reputation for pointless bureaucracy, this strikes me as a rather simple and efficient system – perhaps overly emotive, but one cannot have everything.
We had a leak from our boiler overnight, so I called in our usual man with a van. A talkative chap at the best of times, he ranted about the NIC change.
He also used a phrase something like: "we need a ******* opposition in this country."
The Council of State, France's supreme administrative court, told lawyers today that it has listed Nicolas Dupont-Aignan's claim against TV network TF1 for a public hearing on 16 March. Dupont-Aignan is arguing that the network is wrong to try to include only five candidates in the debate it has scheduled for four days later.
This the first time that presidential debates will be held on TV before the first round, but they are likely to be key. In the primaries such debates made a powerful contribution to the rise of candidates Fillon and Hamon, who in the polls had previously been a long way behind the leaders.
We had a leak from our boiler overnight, so I called in our usual man with a van. A talkative chap at the best of times, he ranted about the NIC change.
He also used a phrase something like: "we need a ******* opposition in this country."
A remarkably astute man.
Wait until he hears about mcmao's tax plans...50p tax rate & 20% wealth tax.
We had a leak from our boiler overnight, so I called in our usual man with a van. A talkative chap at the best of times, he ranted about the NIC change.
He also used a phrase something like: "we need a ******* opposition in this country."
A remarkably astute man.
I hope you gave him a powerpoint presentation on employee NI vs self employed NI, and how he really isn't losing out.
As a rule of thumb, 4% of respondents to any given poll are completely off the wall - as in, they answer "yes" to the question "have you ever been decapitated?" and say they will vote for a non-existent candidate. So from 27 PMs you should be able to elicit 1 (rounding down) barmy answer per question.
You start with a given level of profit to pay to yourself. For a company, you can set how much is paid in salary (remembering that you have to gross it up by Employer's NI) and it assumes the rest is paid by dividend. Here's what you get if you are a BBC luvvie with £100K to pay yourself (2016/2017 tax rules):
Employee paid entirely under PAYE:
To distribute: £100K Employer's NI: (£11.2K) Net nominal Salary: £88.8K Employee NI: (£5.1K) PAYE tax on salary (£24.7K) Net take-home pay: £59K
Pay yourself mainly by dividends:
To distribute: £100K Salary £11K (to use up the personal allowance) Employer's NI: (£0.4K) Employee NI: (£0.35K) Corporation tax: (£17.7K) Dividend payable: £70.9K) Tax on dividend (£14.7K) Net take-home pay: £67K
(The self-employed case is similar)
So under PAYE you are paying about £8K more than if you can use a service company or be self-employed, an effective tax rate of 41%, rather than 33%.
The tax system is broken.
Potentially Hammond has opened Pandora's box with all this. Maybe deliberately?
The problem it seems to me is there are two types of dividend. The sort that a proper shareholder makes in say at PLC and the sort which is used to pay a single director in a self-employed kind of scenario. The latter might be taxed more like income but how do you differentiate.
By having a rate that is 20% tax where total dividends paid are up to 7.5% of the company profit and 40% tax rate if the dividend is over 7.5% of the company profit, for example.
Genuine question, but why should Dividend Income be taxed less than Salary Income? There is potentially a theoretical argument that it should be more (as you should encourage work, rather than living off the profit of capital). Can you not just treat Dividend Income the same as any other Income and then the issue goes away?
We had a leak from our boiler overnight, so I called in our usual man with a van. A talkative chap at the best of times, he ranted about the NIC change.
He also used a phrase something like: "we need a ******* opposition in this country."
A remarkably astute man.
Wait until he hears about mcmao's tax plans...50p tax rate & 20% wealth tax.
Straight out of the proper classical marx theory that one. The equivalent of bodyline bowling, except with Labour as the batsman.
Has Jezza come out in favour of this one ? I've always fancied him as being ever so slightly to the right of McDonnell, haven't ever heard that level of economic lunacy from even Sinn Fein !
I'm neutral on the change. But note that there is nothing at all rightwing about putting money in working people's pockets. That it has become a feature of leftwingery that clobbering people who work hard and creating disincentives to work is a big problem that the Left has long needed to address.
Lets equalise National Insurance for all then.
Why should employed PAYE have to pay more for the same income ?
For lower income! In engineering, the contractors always get more for the same job, then pay less tax as a double benefit.
In exchange for far more employment risk, no benefits and zero security.
4 weeks notice instead of 1. Big security for the staff.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
Many employees are on three months' notice (indeed I am). That's really worth quite a lot.
Again, that benefit of employment comes from your employer not the state though*.
The more I think about it, the more William Glenn's proposal to abolish Employer NI and simply wrap it into income tax seems an eminently fair and sensible suggestion.............
Would that again lead to another tax on work and not on wealth though?
If the government was serious about creating a fair, meritocratic tax system it would look again – and properly – at inheritance. Instead it focuses on clobbering work not unearned wealth.
*P.S. 40% of the economy is in the public sector so your argument, while sound in and of itself, only goes so far
The amount to be raised from taxing inheritance is pretty limited, and the emotional aspect makes it politically difficult. A tax on the unimproved value of land is a genuinely interesting idea though. Progressive, non-distortionary, and difficult to avoid or evade.
My suggestion for inheritance tax is that it is tax free for the person who leaves the money, but the person receiving the inheritance is taxed incurs a very high tax on whatever they leave up to that amount
So
I leave my son £10m He receives £10m He leaves his son £20m His son receives £15m
That should encourage those left a decent whack to make it work for them, and would kill the family fortune of those who dont
Do you have a son to leave your worldly riches too :> ?
You start with a given level of profit to pay to yourself. For a company, you can set how much is paid in salary (remembering that you have to gross it up by Employer's NI) and it assumes the rest is paid by dividend. Here's what you get if you are a BBC luvvie with £100K to pay yourself (2016/2017 tax rules):
Employee paid entirely under PAYE:
To distribute: £100K Employer's NI: (£11.2K) Net nominal Salary: £88.8K Employee NI: (£5.1K) PAYE tax on salary (£24.7K) Net take-home pay: £59K
Pay yourself mainly by dividends:
To distribute: £100K Salary £11K (to use up the personal allowance) Employer's NI: (£0.4K) Employee NI: (£0.35K) Corporation tax: (£17.7K) Dividend payable: £70.9K) Tax on dividend (£14.7K) Net take-home pay: £67K
(The self-employed case is similar)
So under PAYE you are paying about £8K more than if you can use a service company or be self-employed, an effective tax rate of 41%, rather than 33%.
The tax system is broken.
Potentially Hammond has opened Pandora's box with all this. Maybe deliberately?
The problem it seems to me is there are two types of dividend. The sort that a proper shareholder makes in say at PLC and the sort which is used to pay a single director in a self-employed kind of scenario. The latter might be taxed more like income but how do you differentiate.
By having a rate that is 20% tax where total dividends paid are up to 7.5% of the company profit and 40% tax rate if the dividend is over 7.5% of the company profit, for example.
Genuine question, but why should Dividend Income be taxed less than Salary Income? There is potentially a theoretical argument that it should be more (as you should encourage work, rather than living off the profit of capital). Can you not just treat Dividend Income the same as any other Income and then the issue goes away?
The more you think about all this logically, the more you realise how PAYE employed man is really really screwed over.
The Council of State, France's supreme administrative court, told lawyers today that it has listed Nicolas Dupont-Aignan's claim against TV network TF1 for a public hearing on 16 March. Dupont-Aignan is arguing that the network is wrong to try to include only five candidates in the debate it has scheduled for four days later.
This the first time that presidential debates will be held on TV before the first round, but in the primaries such debates made a powerful contribution to the rise of candidates Fillon and Hamon. Before the debates, both had been a long way behind the leaders in the polls.
That might explain the shortening. Presumably if he wins his case he'll shorten further.
Comments
The "advantage" of self employment is an ability to (quite rightly) decrease taxable income through business related expenses (And also take the 2 or 5k dividend allowance). National insurance is supposed the pot to piss in when you're old and drowning in your own piss. A formerly self employed and employed person are going to need precisely the same care in that situation !
Not sure about that Hamilton bet. He is the likeliest winner, but it's pretty short for a bet that could take eight months to come in.
Unimpressed with Red Bull?
When I was on a national retailer contract with a 3PL, half the drivers were agency and nearly all of those were set up as Ltd.
The Ferrari engine looks good, and the chassis both innovative and relatively sorted; in both cases ahead of the soft drinks boys. Everyone is getting very excited about the lad Verstappen, but (tempting fate) I don't see this being his year.
As far as taking eight months, that's the point of a trading bet. F1 lends itself well to that - if Mercedes are going to crush everyone, that will be evident pretty quickly. If not, the Ferrari bet is tasty.
But if they go back and work exactly as an employee, then they should be taxed as an employee.
This won't last 7 days, let alone 5 years.
I am afraid Deliveroo and Hertsmere's lorry drivers have wrecked it for the genuine entrepreneur.
F1: looks like many races will be one stop.
People should have choices about how they work, but those choices should not be driven primarily by differences in tax treatment.
The problem is that the tax system has become so lop-sided that the choice is often driven entirely by the tax treatment. HMRC tries to deal with this by IR35 and other artificial and damaging attempts to stick their fingers in the dyke, rather than tackling the root cause which is the excessive disparity in tax. Yesterday's measure was a tiny attempt at addressing the disparity.
A good debate on the meaning of the poll which must be seen as a disaster for the Tory/Labour unionist cause except by Carlotta who will see it as a setback for Sturgeon and Salmond!!
The real point is that when Salmond triggered Indy ref 1 than he did so on the back of an S3 poll showing independence at almost 30 per cent.
Sturgeon will go to her Conference next week on a poll showing independence at 50 per cent!
The world has changed and it is time to change with it.
The ultimate pace of the cars is anyone's guess; I have little doubt that Merc have a fair amount in reserve that they haven't shown (& there are some indications that the same is true of Ferrari).
It'd sting the self employed, pensioners and those with employers who simply see it as a ruse to reduce payroll costs.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/839867671806103555
It's a choice that individuals and companies make, swings and roundabouts with benefits for the country in the flexibility of the workforce.
And if your net pay is >50% higher as a contractor, you can cover the costs of staff benefits and still be quids in.
Meanwhile......
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/where-would-you-place-yourself-on-a-scale-between-i-completely-support-scotland#table
Figure for those having a positive view of:
Fillon 23% (+1)
Juppé 47% (+8)
Macron 45% (+2)
Hollande 23% (+3)
Changes are relative to a month ago. The article doesn't quote a figure for Le Pen, but maybe it's available elsewhere.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/03/09/97001-20170309FILWWW00242-sondage-fillon-stable-juppe-grimpe.php
I used to get quite pissed off when they used to hark on about us PAYE saps.
The employer liked it as there was none of the non wage costs to worry about.
And they were a lot easier to get rid of when necessary.
Some will no doubt be lucky for a while, but the majority of contractors by the nature of the work aren't.
The advantages of PAYE only come from the employer anyway - not the state (Though I accept the edge case of if the business goes bust you might then benefit from the state as an employee, certainly not as a contractor)
But they aren't an employee. No. Definitely not. Despite being full time at one company for 4 years.
OK, I'm going to stop banging on about this now.
The more I think about it, the more William Glenn's proposal to abolish Employer NI and simply wrap it into income tax seems an eminently fair and sensible suggestion.............
You also have Wee Nicky who is a masterclass of a politician and a brilliant campaigner, compared to Wee Eck who is merely an excellent politician and a great campaigner. Worth a point or two, this time around?
Good luck – I wish you and your great country well.
See link - open comments at bottom, sort by highest rated.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39219275
If the government was serious about creating a fair, meritocratic tax system it would look again – and properly – at inheritance. Instead it focuses on clobbering work not unearned wealth.
*P.S. 40% of the economy is in the public sector so your argument, while sound in and of itself, only goes so far
The tax efficient are in two distinct groups:
Those who are pushed that way so that the contractor can be tax efficient and avoid employers NI, Amazon? Uber? Delivery drivers?
Those who earn above average incomes and can mitigate tax liability via self employment, payment by dividend etc, the Ken Livingstone or some of the media types, some consultants, GPs?, and I should think some footballers to name a few.
How to moderate the behaviour and collect fair tax from these two groups (or the contractor / employer) without hitting the genuine self employed is the question.
Answers on a postcard to:
1) Sturgeon calls for a referendum before Article 50 negotiations are finished
2) May is unable to stop an 'advisory' referendum and decides better to halt negotiations and hold a proper one
3) Article 50 rescinded, temporarily
4) Scottish referendum, they vote to Leave
5) Article 50 remains suspended whilst the UK separates
6) New election
7) New referendum for England/Wales/Northern Ireland on EU
8) Remain wins, following the trauma (economic etc) of Scottish departure
9) England, Wales, Northern Ireland veto Scottish membership of EU following bitter negotiations
*And I'm procrastinating.
William Glenn's proposal would actually lead to a tax increase on ALL income earnt between £14 and £43k (Was that the NI employer band ?, sorry I'm not a tax specialist) - and so wouldn't penalise income earnt through work over that earnt through investment say (As happens at the moment).
But the wailing at the pensioners' tax allowance being *increased* at a rate not quite as fast as that of non-pensioners was loud enough. God know what it'd be like if you suddenly dropped one of the biggest tax rises in history on to their doormat.
Thinking about it from the viewpoint of what is good for the country, if a company can get a person with a particular skill who is willing to come from a different part of the country for a project lasting say 6 months and then can be got rid of easily then that is advantageous.
Making contracting less beneficial will result in fewer people doing it and that may disadvantage the economy.
If a contractor is in one place for 4 years then the management should make him permanent or replace him with a permanent member of staff.
‘I completely support Scotland staying part of the UK’ 38%
Yoons a bunch of brainwashed cultists, who knew?
Meanwhile for the cooncil elections that will be a poll on appetite for Indy Ref II (©Tessy), SCons 19%, SLab 17%, very much an 'MOE' difference.
What's the opposite of a Scottish Tory surge klaxon, a wee, damp, SCon squib mebbes?
Lord Kerr told peers during a parliamentary session last month: "If, having looked into abyss, we changed our minds about withdrawal, we certainly could - and no-one in Brussels could stop us."
I can't Leave if Leaving is without EU...
Emphasises the point that we are leaving through choice, and not being kicked out. It may also strengthen their position in post break up arbitration.......
http://www.employedandselfemployed.co.uk/limited-company-tax-calculator
You start with a given level of profit to pay to yourself. For a company, you can set how much is paid in salary (remembering that you have to gross it up by Employer's NI) and it assumes the rest is paid by dividend. Here's what you get if you are a BBC luvvie with £100K to pay yourself (2016/2017 tax rules):
Employee paid entirely under PAYE:
To distribute: £100K
Employer's NI: (£11.2K)
Net nominal Salary: £88.8K
Employee NI: (£5.1K)
PAYE tax on salary (£24.7K)
Net take-home pay: £59K
Pay yourself mainly by dividends:
To distribute: £100K
Salary £11K (to use up the personal allowance)
Employer's NI: (£0.4K)
Employee NI: (£0.35K)
Corporation tax: (£17.7K)
Dividend payable: £70.9K
Tax on dividend (£14.7K)
Net take-home pay: £67K
(The self-employed case is similar)
So under PAYE you are getting about £8K more than if you can use a service company or be self-employed, an effective tax rate of 41%, rather than 33%.
The tax system is broken.
The problem it seems to me is there are two types of dividend. The sort that a proper shareholder makes in say at PLC and the sort which is used to pay a single director in a self-employed kind of scenario. The latter might be taxed more like income but how do you differentiate.
So
I leave my son £10m
He receives £10m
He leaves his son £20m
His son receives £15m
That should encourage those left a decent whack to make it work for them, and would kill the family fortune of those who dont
Without a doubt and I fully expect the next batch of polls to demonstrate precisely that.
I still think Sam Vokes should have become a cricketer not a footballer.
To leave the EU we have to write a letter saying: "We want to leave, give us Article 50 and half the house, you bastard."
To stay in the EU we have to write a letter saying: "I love you."
Given the EU's reputation for pointless bureaucracy, this strikes me as a rather simple and efficient system – perhaps overly emotive, but one cannot have everything.
We had a leak from our boiler overnight, so I called in our usual man with a van. A talkative chap at the best of times, he ranted about the NIC change.
He also used a phrase something like: "we need a ******* opposition in this country."
A remarkably astute man.
This the first time that presidential debates will be held on TV before the first round, but they are likely to be key. In the primaries such debates made a powerful contribution to the rise of candidates Fillon and Hamon, who in the polls had previously been a long way behind the leaders.
Has Jezza come out in favour of this one ? I've always fancied him as being ever so slightly to the right of McDonnell, haven't ever heard that level of economic lunacy from even Sinn Fein !
That would be good (£2 at 560...)