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?
Because the money has already paid corporation tax.
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?
Because at some level you need to have an incentive to invest in a company (it is a risk), and the dividend is a part of the ROI
The more you think about all this logically, the more you realise how PAYE employed man is really really screwed over.
Absolutely - and it's clear why. By calling a very large chunk of what is really income tax 'Employer's National Insurance', so that it doesn't actually appear on the payslip, successive governments have got away with fleecing PAYE man without him noticing.
Of course, the unintended consequence of that is tax avoidance through service companies. Well, what a surprise.
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.
I daren't upset him: he's the only person in the area who can fix the POS PowerMax boilers. The key thing is to give him lots of cups of tea and nod vigorously at his wise words and sage advice.
When you find a good workman, you want to keep them.
(And he isn't bad: an emergency call out, and a repair including a spare valve he had in his van, for under sixty quid including VAT. Bargain.).
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.
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.
I daren't upset him: he's the only person in the area who can fix the POS PowerMax boilers. The key thing is to give him lots of cups of tea and nod vigorously at his wise words and sage advice.
When you find a good workman, you want to keep them.
(And he isn't bad: an emergency call out, and a repair including a spare valve he had in his van, for under sixty quid including VAT. Bargain.).
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.
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.
I daren't upset him: he's the only person in the area who can fix the POS PowerMax boilers. The key thing is to give him lots of cups of tea and nod vigorously at his wise words and sage advice.
When you find a good workman, you want to keep them.
(And he isn't bad: an emergency call out, and a repair including a spare valve he had in his van, for under sixty quid including VAT. Bargain.).
Cash?
No, he insists on cheque or bank transfer. I don't know why: perhaps he doesn't feel safe carrying cash around the hive of scum and villainy that is Cambourne. Or that I'd have some funny money ...
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.
I daren't upset him: he's the only person in the area who can fix the POS PowerMax boilers. The key thing is to give him lots of cups of tea and nod vigorously at his wise words and sage advice.
When you find a good workman, you want to keep them.
(And he isn't bad: an emergency call out, and a repair including a spare valve he had in his van, for under sixty quid including VAT. Bargain.).
Cash?
No, he insists on cheque or bank transfer. I don't know why: perhaps he doesn't feel safe carrying cash around the hive of scum and villainy that is Cambourne. Or that I'd have some funny money ...
I couldn't do a cheque for someone the other day - I have no idea where the cheque book is - haven't used it for so long.
The more you think about all this logically, the more you realise how PAYE employed man is really really screwed over.
Absolutely - and it's clear why. By calling a very large chunk of what is really income tax 'Employer's National Insurance', so that it doesn't actually appear on the payslip, successive governments have got away with fleecing PAYE man without him noticing.
Anyone with any nous must realise they are no more than a number on an account sheet to an employer. If you get paid £100kpa its because they think you are worth £125k. The trade off is a guaranteed income and job security/workers rights.
In betting terms PAYE people are hit the cashout button for bad value but guaranteed profit when they agree their contract, and probably losing out long term, but with less volatility in life. At my old firm, I offered to swap my salary for 25% of what I earned the company (generally about £500k) and they just laughed! As if!
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
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.
I daren't upset him: he's the only person in the area who can fix the POS PowerMax boilers. The key thing is to give him lots of cups of tea and nod vigorously at his wise words and sage advice.
When you find a good workman, you want to keep them.
(And he isn't bad: an emergency call out, and a repair including a spare valve he had in his van, for under sixty quid including VAT. Bargain.).
Cash?
No, he insists on cheque or bank transfer. I don't know why: perhaps he doesn't feel safe carrying cash around the hive of scum and villainy that is Cambourne. Or that I'd have some funny money ...
I couldn't do a cheque for someone the other day - I have no idea where the cheque book is - haven't used it for so long.
Neither my wife nor I has had a chequebook for over a decade...
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.
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.
Oh those evil Eurocrats
I am waiting for the govt.s response on this one because they seem to insist that that the strength of their negotiation tactics is that A.50 leaves the UK & EU with either an acceptable deal or, failing that, disaster for the EU and a bit of hardship for the UK.
Did it never occur to them that the EU can undermine their position by ensuring Option 3 exist? "Come back all is forgiven"
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.
I daren't upset him: he's the only person in the area who can fix the POS PowerMax boilers. The key thing is to give him lots of cups of tea and nod vigorously at his wise words and sage advice.
When you find a good workman, you want to keep them.
(And he isn't bad: an emergency call out, and a repair including a spare valve he had in his van, for under sixty quid including VAT. Bargain.).
Cash?
Cash is not safe. HMRC is reputed to be aware of Benford's Law.....
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.
Answers on a postcard to:
The last group also tend to work through LLPs (think lawyers, accountants, consultants).
Tax law considers two types of people - employees and the self employed. Employment law has a third category, worker, which derives from EU employment law directives. Typically workers are self employed for tax purposes if they are not employees.
The recent employment law case for Uber drivers stated that the drivers were workers.
Similarly there is a Supreme Court case confirming that members of a LLP are also workers.
The employers NIC provisions could be extended to include workers, thus equalising the position with employees.
The "genuine" self employed would not be caught by this measure.
However this would leave the tax benefits of personal service companies.
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.
They're setting it up to give the UK a horrible deal and then say... well you can always come back.
This is why A50 has to be irreversible (which the High Court said it was).
This question is going before the ECJ (via Ireland) and I would urge everyone to wait their ruling rather than listen to someone who is not qualified to say one way or another
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.
The Brexit part will increase support for the Tories, the sacking of Heseltine will have no bearing whatsoever on national polling, and I seriously doubt the third bit as well. I just cannot see millions of self employed people suddenly switching their voting intention, especially to Labour.
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Perhaps they are. It would certainly be an astute move for the EU to offer it as an option even if the treaties do not.
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Lord Kerr has actually only given his opinion. In order for it to be clarified it will have to go to the ECJ.
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Perhaps they are. It would certainly be an astute move for the EU to offer it as an option even if the treaties do not.
As I have just posted neither Lord Kerr or anyone else can rule on this - wait for the ECJ's decision and then like the Supreme Court the position will be clarified
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.
Volatility of poll scores is much higher in primaries than in generals. There is next to evidence of meaningful shifts from UK general election debates or US presidential ones. There is lots of evidence of meaningful shifts in primary debates in the US.
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.
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 difference is now minimal - about the right level to reward enterprise and risk capital.
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.
They're setting it up to give the UK a horrible deal and then say... well you can always come back.
This is why A50 has to be irreversible (which the High Court said it was).
The High Court said no such thing.
I cannot remember exactly where the comment was in the ruling, but the argument is this:
If A50 is reversible, then there would be no permanent change or loss to the people (as it could simply be reversed), then there would be no requirement to get parliament's approval to enact A50. The point of the High Court case would be irrelevant.
I may be misremembering but at the time the permanency of the changes caused by A50 was a key point.
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?
Because of Corporation Tax.
PAYE income is paid before Corporation Tax and thus reduces the amount of Corporation Tax due.
Dividend Income is paid after Corporation Tax (it is illegal to pay dividends unless Corporation Tax has been paid).
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.
They're setting it up to give the UK a horrible deal and then say... well you can always come back.
This is why A50 has to be irreversible (which the High Court said it was).
The High Court said no such thing.
I cannot remember exactly where the comment was in the ruling, but the argument is this:
If A50 is reversible, then there would be no permanent change or loss to the people (as it could simply be reversed), then there would be no requirement to get parliament's approval to enact A50. The point of the High Court case would be irrelevant.
I may be misremembering but at the time the permanency of the changes caused by A50 was a key point.
No because the question was not could it be reversed but who can reverse it.
If the government (not Parliament) could unilaterally issue and reverse article 50 then if the government chose not to reverse it then the government could pull us out of the EU (changing associated laws) without referring to Parliament.
If Parliament can issue and reverse article 50 then Parliamentary approval is needed, but that was all that was at stake in the case so there was no need to determine if it is reversible.
On topic, I am not sure this is quite as huge as the tuition fees pledge.
The broken NIC pledge is surely wotrse because the Lib Dems were in an overriding coalition agreement for the good of tyhe nation. The Conservatives are in sole charge.
On topic, I am not sure this is quite as huge as the tuition fees pledge.
The broken NIC pledge is surely wotrse because the Lib Dems were in an overriding coalition agreement for the good of tyhe nation. The Conservatives are in sole charge.
On topic, I am not sure this is quite as huge as the tuition fees pledge.
The broken NIC pledge is surely wotrse because the Lib Dems were in an overriding coalition agreement for the good of tyhe nation. The Conservatives are in sole charge.
Look how much Poland have been able to shape the E.U......what utter tripe.
Well he is a former Polish Prime Minister. The fact that the current Polish government have gone out on a limb to isolate themselves is the most remarkable thing about it.
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.
They're setting it up to give the UK a horrible deal and then say... well you can always come back.
This is why A50 has
I thought it was a locked on certainty that the Eu would be falling over itself to offer us a great deal?
We run a trade deficit with the EU so a collapse in trade would hurt them worse than us plus our £10bn contribution to the EU budget and our unparalleled military might would mean the EU would be fools not to offer us what we want. We were going to have our cake and eat it.
You're not suggesting Boris and co lied to us and that no deal isn't really better than a bad deal?
Richard N - also, that isn't a fair comparison as in the director dividend example 100k of distributable profits will already have had a large amount of corp paid on it. I've a pup on my feet so can't get to the spreadsheets, but really don't see what is so egregious about the marginal difference between PAYE and Directir dividends at that level.
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.
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.
They're setting it up to give the UK a horrible deal and then say... well you can always come back.
This is why A50 has to be irreversible (which the High Court said it was).
The High Court said no such thing.
I cannot remember exactly where the comment was in the ruling, but the argument is this:
If A50 is reversible, then there would be no permanent change or loss to the people (as it could simply be reversed), then there would be no requirement to get parliament's approval to enact A50. The point of the High Court case would be irrelevant.
I may be misremembering but at the time the permanency of the changes caused by A50 was a key point.
No because the question was not could it be reversed but who can reverse it.
If the government (not Parliament) could unilaterally issue and reverse article 50 then if the government chose not to reverse it then the government could pull us out of the EU (changing associated laws) without referring to Parliament.
If Parliament can issue and reverse article 50 then Parliamentary approval is needed, but that was all that was at stake in the case so there was no need to determine if it is reversible.
OK.
Although if A50 is reversible* it's going to make a mess: The EU can offer a bad deal to hope we return, and the UK can reject any deal, reverse the A50 and then start again with another 2 year negotiation.
* I can't see how it can be as it makes a nonsense of the two-year time limit.
Richard N - also, that isn't a fair comparison as in the director dividend example 100k of distributable profits will already have had a large amount of corp paid on it. I've a pup on my feet so can't get to the spreadsheets, but really don't see what is so egregious about the marginal difference between PAYE and Directir dividends at that level.
No, the corporation tax is included in the calculation. Assume £100K profit (before paying yourself anything). Pay yourself £11K salary (+associated employer's NI), which of course comes off profit for corporation tax purposes. You then pay £17.7K corporation tax, and what's left is what is paid out in the dividend. You end up with £67K in your pocket, as opposed to the £59K the PAYE sap gets on identical assumptions.
So it's not a marginal difference, it's an enormous difference: 41% vs 33% net tax rate.
On the other hand, today was the first day in a while when I've doubted if Brexit will actually happen.
Partly just a mood thing, partly Scotland, mainly the realisation that the ECJ can rule that A50 is reversible. So the EU can offer us an unbelievably shite deal, knowing that we will likely then change our minds. And we stay. Though probably "stay" would be fudged, semantically, to save face.
Funny, I have been telling my mates at the pub for months that it will never actually happen.
Seems we may be on the same page, although slightly different reasons - I reckon there will be buyers remorse once the scale of the economic cliff we are heading over comes into view, just in time to be reversed.
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
No one contends, do they, that Art. 50 is unstoppable without the consent of the 27? Lord Kerr had this to say about extensions beyond 2 years: “The European union is a union of democracies. If this Parliament asked – and our Government conveyed our request – for an extension, in my judgement it would certainly be given.” He strikes me as overly optimistic about that, and doubly so about a complete abrogation of the Art. 50 notice.
Note that Bettel is only one of 27, and governs rather fewer people than the Mayor of Sheffield.
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Perhaps they are. It would certainly be an astute move for the EU to offer it as an option even if the treaties do not.
I cannot imagine they would really want us to change our minds,given if we did it's unlikely we'd certainly be huge fans of more integration and everything else they want to do, but as a means of encouraging holdout remainers to keep up the fight, it could still make sense.
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.
They're setting it up to give the UK a horrible deal and then say... well you can always come back.
This is why A50 has to be irreversible (which the High Court said it was).
I thought They said it was agreed that it was, but as a result I don't think they really looked into it?
Perhaps that was it. I just (vaguely) remember one of the judges saying that he (strongly) accepted the gov counsel's position that A50 was irreversible.
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.
They're setting it up to give the UK a horrible deal and then say... well you can always come back.
This is why A50 has to be irreversible (which the High Court said it was).
I thought They said it was agreed that it was, but as a result I don't think they really looked into it?
Perhaps that was it. I just (vaguely) remember one of the judges saying that he (strongly) accepted the gov counsel's position that A50 was irreversible.
I'm sure he did. From my recalled scanning of the judgement I think it was part of the agreed positions from those bringing the case as well (though they may well feel different now), so one of the things that didn't need examining, though IIRC one of the dissenting justices did reference that it had been accepted by both sides it was irreversible, but that some academic opinion thought it was not that simple.
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Perhaps they are. It would certainly be an astute move for the EU to offer it as an option even if the treaties do not.
I cannot imagine they would really want us to change our minds,given if we did it's unlikely we'd certainly be huge fans of more integration and everything else they want to do, but as a means of encouraging holdout remainers to keep up the fight, it could still make sense.
Yes. As a method of weakening the UK negotiating position it has a certain allure from the EU side. As to the legality of the position, I am not a lawyer...
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 !
The McDonnell "take 20% from the top 10%" Indy story is, on closer inspection, about him wibbling to a private Labour meeting in 2012, so not hugely much of a story.
There will be a "new contributory benefit test for the self-employed."
with a proposed:
"create a new zero-rate band of Class 4 NICs on annual profits between the Small Profits Threshold (SPT, currently £5,965) – the point at which Class 2 is currently liable to be paid – and the Lower Profits Limit (LPL, currently £8,060) – the point at which Class 4 becomes payable"
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Perhaps they are. It would certainly be an astute move for the EU to offer it as an option even if the treaties do not.
I cannot imagine they would really want us to change our minds,given if we did it's unlikely we'd certainly be huge fans of more integration and everything else they want to do, but as a means of encouraging holdout remainers to keep up the fight, it could still make sense.
The EU will be quite happy to have us back, especially since they no longer have to honour Cameron's deal and the humiliation of having u-turned will leave us in a weakened position going forward.
On the other hand, today was the first day in a while when I've doubted if Brexit will actually happen.
Partly just a mood thing, partly Scotland, mainly the realisation that the ECJ can rule that A50 is reversible. So the EU can offer us an unbelievably shite deal, knowing that we will likely then change our minds. And we stay. Though probably "stay" would be fudged, semantically, to save face.
Can you imagine?
All the Kippers, Farage in particular, that were saying 'By the way if we vote to leave they wont let us', and pointed to all the other little countries that were forced into staying, would be right yet again!
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Perhaps they are. It would certainly be an astute move for the EU to offer it as an option even if the treaties do not.
I cannot imagine they would really want us to change our minds,given if we did it's unlikely we'd certainly be huge fans of more integration and everything else they want to do, but as a means of encouraging holdout remainers to keep up the fight, it could still make sense.
My sense is that they really do want us to change our minds. Brexit will be economical painful and politically dangerous for the EU. They're over the shock and horror and now they're thinking.
The EU sees thwarting Brexit as desirable. The best way to do that is to make A50 reversible. Who decides that? The ECJ. The ECJ always acts in the interests of the EU. So it would rule that A50 can be revoked.
Then they offer us the worst deal in history, we fold (in some face saving way). Brexit is thwarted.
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Perhaps they are. It would certainly be an astute move for the EU to offer it as an option even if the treaties do not.
I cannot imagine they would really want us to change our minds,given if we did it's unlikely we'd certainly be huge fans of more integration and everything else they want to do, but as a means of encouraging holdout remainers to keep up the fight, it could still make sense.
My sense is that they really do want us to change our minds. Brexit will be economical painful and politically dangerous for the EU. They're over the shock and horror and now they're thinking.
The EU sees thwarting Brexit as desirable. The best way to do that is to make A50 reversible. Who decides that? The ECJ. The ECJ always acts in the interests of the EU. So it would rule that A50 can be revoked.
Then they offer us the worst deal in history, we fold (in some face saving way). Brexit is thwarted.
Just for a bit, hopefully, you’ve stopped writing fiction.
I feel the EU is beginning to realise just how strong its negotiation position is, particularly if they're paying close attention to UK domestic politics where half of the legislature, and even some of those within the governing party can stir up trouble if there is a poor deal struck.
They should not yield or bend. We need to be taught a very serious and painful lesson here. And take it we must, to back out now would have us labelled as losers and quitters for all eternity.
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Perhaps they are. It would certainly be an astute move for the EU to offer it as an option even if the treaties do not.
I cannot imagine they would really want us to change our minds,given if we did it's unlikely we'd certainly be huge fans of more integration and everything else they want to do, but as a means of encouraging holdout remainers to keep up the fight, it could still make sense.
My sense is that they really do want us to change our minds. Brexit will be economical painful and politically dangerous for the EU. They're over the shock and horror and now they're thinking.
The EU sees thwarting Brexit as desirable. The best way to do that is to make A50 reversible. Who decides that? The ECJ. The ECJ always acts in the interests of the EU. So it would rule that A50 can be revoked.
Then they offer us the worst deal in history, we fold (in some face saving way). Brexit is thwarted.
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Perhaps they are. It would certainly be an astute move for the EU to offer it as an option even if the treaties do not.
I cannot imagine they would really want us to change our minds,given if we did it's unlikely we'd certainly be huge fans of more integration and everything else they want to do, but as a means of encouraging holdout remainers to keep up the fight, it could still make sense.
Yes. As a method of weakening the UK negotiating position it has a certain allure from the EU side. As to the legality of the position, I am not a lawyer...
If each and every party to a contract agrees to do something ostensibly not permitted by the contract, that is legally absolutely fine; so if the 27 unanimously offered to treat an Art. 50 notice as withdrawn and the UK accepted the offer, I don't see a legal problem at all.
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.
Volatility of poll scores is much higher in primaries than in generals. There is next to evidence of meaningful shifts from UK general election debates or US presidential ones. There is lots of evidence of meaningful shifts in primary debates in the US.
In a sense the first round in France is a kind of primary. The Trump-Clinton debates were as if for the second round.
I'll be surprised if the mean absolute change in poll scores for the top two changers in the aftermath of the first debate is less than 3%.
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Perhaps they are. It would certainly be an astute move for the EU to offer it as an option even if the treaties do not.
I cannot imagine they would really want us to change our minds,given if we did it's unlikely we'd certainly be huge fans of more integration and everything else they want to do, but as a means of encouraging holdout remainers to keep up the fight, it could still make sense.
Yes. As a method of weakening the UK negotiating position it has a certain allure from the EU side. As to the legality of the position, I am not a lawyer...
If each and every party to a contract agrees to do something ostensibly not permitted by the contract, that is legally absolutely fine; so if the 27 unanimously offered to treat an Art. 50 notice as withdrawn and the UK accepted the offer, I don't see a legal problem at all.
Yes. If everyone agrees, there's nothing to argue about.
What would be really ironic is if they said: look, if you change your minds, you can have Cameron's deal...
On the other hand, today was the first day in a while when I've doubted if Brexit will actually happen.
Partly just a mood thing, partly Scotland, mainly the realisation that the ECJ can rule that A50 is reversible. So the EU can offer us an unbelievably shite deal, knowing that we will likely then change our minds. And we stay. Though probably "stay" would be fudged, semantically, to save face.
Can you imagine?
All the Kippers, Farage in particular, that were saying 'By the way if we vote to leave they wont let us', and pointed to all the other little countries that were forced into staying, would be right yet again!
On the other hand, today was the first day in a while when I've doubted if Brexit will actually happen.
Partly just a mood thing, partly Scotland, mainly the realisation that the ECJ can rule that A50 is reversible. So the EU can offer us an unbelievably shite deal, knowing that we will likely then change our minds. And we stay. Though probably "stay" would be fudged, semantically, to save face.
The offer could boil down to "Do you want to be like Norway? Or do you want a kick up the ****?"
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not really news (although I accept that it puts flesh on the bone). It is the headbanger brigade who have been trying to advance this myth that once Article 50 has been triggered it is unstoppable. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Perhaps they are. It would certainly be an astute move for the EU to offer it as an option even if the treaties do not.
I cannot imagine they would really want us to change our minds,given if we did it's unlikely we'd certainly be huge fans of more integration and everything else they want to do, but as a means of encouraging holdout remainers to keep up the fight, it could still make sense.
My sense is that they really do want us to change our minds. Brexit will be economical painful and politically dangerous for the EU. They're over the shock and horror and now they're thinking.
The EU sees thwarting Brexit as desirable. The best way to do that is to make A50 reversible. Who decides that? The ECJ. The ECJ always acts in the interests of the EU. So it would rule that A50 can be revoked.
Then they offer us the worst deal in history, we fold (in some face saving way). Brexit is thwarted.
Then there would have to be a second referendum. (I know, technically there wouldn't, but politically there would). The choice would be between "the worst deal in history" (so by definition worse than the one David Cameron negotiated last time) or leave. Why would the electorate chose to stay on terms worse than they were offered before? It doesn't make sense.
Get Tony Blair and Mandy to say it instead of Cammo and Oz?
I feel the EU is beginning to realise just how strong its negotiation position is, particularly if they're paying close attention to UK domestic politics where half of the legislature, and even some of those within the governing party can stir up trouble if there is a poor deal struck.
Their position isn't strong, in the sense that they would damage themselves if they damage us. That Michael Barnier tweet is a good bit of negotiating bravado, but it doesn't actually amount to a hill of beans. Sure, the 'Single market is the home market and fundamental priority', but so what? Signing a good trade deal with the UK is in no way incompatible with that - quite the opposite, in fact. It's not an either/or, they can have both, if they want.
Of course, they might want to shoot themselves in the foot out of an irrational wish to take a pot-shot at us. We shall see.
On the other hand, today was the first day in a while when I've doubted if Brexit will actually happen.
Partly just a mood thing, partly Scotland, mainly the realisation that the ECJ can rule that A50 is reversible. So the EU can offer us an unbelievably shite deal, knowing that we will likely then change our minds. And we stay. Though probably "stay" would be fudged, semantically, to save face.
Can you imagine?
All the Kippers, Farage in particular, that were saying 'By the way if we vote to leave they wont let us', and pointed to all the other little countries that were forced into staying, would be right yet again!
How is the EU not letting the UK leave?
By rudely preventing possession of cake and simultaneous eating of it. Bastards.
I feel the EU is beginning to realise just how strong its negotiation position is, particularly if they're paying close attention to UK domestic politics where half of the legislature, and even some of those within the governing party can stir up trouble if there is a poor deal struck.
Their position isn't strong, in the sense that they would damage themselves if they damage us. That Michael Barnier tweet is a good bit of negotiating bravado, but it doesn't actually amount to a hill of beans. Sure, the 'Single market is the home market and fundamental priority', but so what? Signing a good trade deal with the UK is in no way incompatible with that - quite the opposite, in fact. It's not an either/or, they can have both, if they want.
Of course, they might want to shoot themselves in the foot out of an irrational wish to take a pot-shot at us. We shall see.
Don't forget the EU has to keep itself together. Too good a good deal for the UK, and why would the other 27 want to stay ?
Richard N - also, that isn't a fair comparison as in the director dividend example 100k of distributable profits will already have had a large amount of corp paid on it. I've a pup on my feet so can't get to the spreadsheets, but really don't see what is so egregious about the marginal difference between PAYE and Directir dividends at that level.
No, the corporation tax is included in the calculation. Assume £100K profit (before paying yourself anything). Pay yourself £11K salary (+associated employer's NI), which of course comes off profit for corporation tax purposes. You then pay £17.7K corporation tax, and what's left is what is paid out in the dividend. You end up with £67K in your pocket, as opposed to the £59K the PAYE sap gets on identical assumptions.
So it's not a marginal difference, it's an enormous difference: 41% vs 33% net tax rate.
Ah, my mistake - apologies.
Care to respond to my earlier point, though:
The different is 'about the right level to reward enterprise and risk capital.'
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.
Lord Kerr has already clarified this so not reale. Perhaps they are worried that Britain might change its mind.
Perhaps they are. It would certainly be an astute move for the EU to offer it as an option even if the treaties do not.
I cannot imagine they would really want us o keep up the fight, it could still make sense.
My sense is that they roked.
Then they offer us the worst deal in history, we fold (in some face saving way). Brexit is thwarted.
hmm
so far they havent offered us a better deal
the stick rather than the carrot wont work
No, my point is they will offer us a deliberately terrible deal, one that harms them too, but calling our bluff, knowing that A50 can be revoked. Is TMay's government strong enough to force a truly calamitous deal through parliament?
Look at the remarks by the Wetherspoons guy today. The Brits are frit.
It all depends on the revocability of A50. And I've just realised that it's the EU which decides on that. Not us.
This could be a minor mood swing in grey old Paris. And tomorrow I will be a confident brexiteer again. Who knows.
Pah
we have crossed the Rubicon
if cowardly Dave had stayed in place he could have swung a crap deal 2 which might have passed now its too big a gap
neither EU nor Uk can be seen to climb down
Remainers hoping for a reprieve just dont get that we are now damaged goods and can never be truly at the core
They're over the shock and horror and now they're thinking.
It must also be plainly obvious to the EU that the UK population is torn over this issue.
About 52 to 48!
Call it 50/50 with Margin of Error.
OK - International Women's Day is over so I can resume my responsibilities of cooking dinner - Garlic and Chili chicken in stir-fried mushrooms, yellow peppers and noodles.
Having said that, I cooked dinner yesterday too....
They're over the shock and horror and now they're thinking.
It must also be plainly obvious to the EU that the UK population is torn over this issue.
About 52 to 48!
Call it 50/50 with Margin of Error.
OK - International Women's Day is over so I can resume my responsibilities of cooking dinner - Garlic and Chili chicken in stir-fried mushrooms, yellow peppers and noodles.
Having said that, I cooked dinner yesterday too....
Margin error on a poll of 33 million voters? Small, I imagine.
They're over the shock and horror and now they're thinking.
It must also be plainly obvious to the EU that the UK population is torn over this issue.
About 52 to 48!
Call it 50/50 with Margin of Error.
OK - International Women's Day is over so I can resume my responsibilities of cooking dinner - Garlic and Chili chicken in stir-fried mushrooms, yellow peppers and noodles.
Having said that, I cooked dinner yesterday too....
Britain is leaving the EU. That has been clear since 24 June.
Remainers seeking to revisit the decision and Leavers paranoid about treachery are both equally wide of the mark. The country is going over Niagara in a barrel now.
The different is 'about the right level to reward enterprise and risk capital.'
Yes, arguably it might about the right level to reward enterprise and risk capital, although there are also other rewards for that (notably Entrepreneurs' Relief on CGT). The problem is that many micro-businesses don't involve much enterprise and certainly don't require much risk capital, but are driven entirely by the tax treatment.
They're over the shock and horror and now they're thinking.
It must also be plainly obvious to the EU that the UK population is torn over this issue.
About 52 to 48!
Call it 50/50 with Margin of Error.
OK - International Women's Day is over so I can resume my responsibilities of cooking dinner - Garlic and Chili chicken in stir-fried mushrooms, yellow peppers and noodles.
Having said that, I cooked dinner yesterday too....
Comments
Of course, the unintended consequence of that is tax avoidance through service companies. Well, what a surprise.
When you find a good workman, you want to keep them.
(And he isn't bad: an emergency call out, and a repair including a spare valve he had in his van, for under sixty quid including VAT. Bargain.).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-article-50-xavier-bettel-i-love-you-theresa-may-a7621091.html
They're setting it up to give the UK a horrible deal and then say... well you can always come back.
This is why A50 has to be irreversible (which the High Court said it was).
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/09/theresa-may-philip-hammond-face-serious-tory-revolt-over-tax-on-self-employed
In betting terms PAYE people are hit the cashout button for bad value but guaranteed profit when they agree their contract, and probably losing out long term, but with less volatility in life. At my old firm, I offered to swap my salary for 25% of what I earned the company (generally about £500k) and they just laughed! As if!
So does it come down to Northern Ireland Unionists ?!
I am waiting for the govt.s response on this one because they seem to insist that that the strength of their negotiation tactics is that A.50 leaves the UK & EU with either an acceptable deal or, failing that, disaster for the EU and a bit of hardship for the UK.
Did it never occur to them that the EU can undermine their position by ensuring Option 3 exist? "Come back all is forgiven"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law
Tax law considers two types of people - employees and the self employed. Employment law has a third category, worker, which derives from EU employment law directives. Typically workers are self employed for tax purposes if they are not employees.
The recent employment law case for Uber drivers stated that the drivers were workers.
Similarly there is a Supreme Court case confirming that members of a LLP are also workers.
The employers NIC provisions could be extended to include workers, thus equalising the position with employees.
The "genuine" self employed would not be caught by this measure.
However this would leave the tax benefits of personal service companies.
I cannot remember exactly where the comment was in the ruling, but the argument is this:
If A50 is reversible, then there would be no permanent change or loss to the people (as it could simply be reversed), then there would be no requirement to get parliament's approval to enact A50. The point of the High Court case would be irrelevant.
I may be misremembering but at the time the permanency of the changes caused by A50 was a key point.
PAYE income is paid before Corporation Tax and thus reduces the amount of Corporation Tax due.
Dividend Income is paid after Corporation Tax (it is illegal to pay dividends unless Corporation Tax has been paid).
If the government (not Parliament) could unilaterally issue and reverse article 50 then if the government chose not to reverse it then the government could pull us out of the EU (changing associated laws) without referring to Parliament.
If Parliament can issue and reverse article 50 then Parliamentary approval is needed, but that was all that was at stake in the case so there was no need to determine if it is reversible.
We run a trade deficit with the EU so a collapse in trade would hurt them worse than us plus our £10bn contribution to the EU budget and our unparalleled military might would mean the EU would be fools not to offer us what we want. We were going to have our cake and eat it.
You're not suggesting Boris and co lied to us and that no deal isn't really better than a bad deal?
Well, if he'd like to send me a private message, that would be super
OK.
Although if A50 is reversible* it's going to make a mess: The EU can offer a bad deal to hope we return, and the UK can reject any deal, reverse the A50 and then start again with another 2 year negotiation.
* I can't see how it can be as it makes a nonsense of the two-year time limit.
*Looks at 1.70 self*
So it's not a marginal difference, it's an enormous difference: 41% vs 33% net tax rate.
Seems we may be on the same page, although slightly different reasons - I reckon there will be buyers remorse once the scale of the economic cliff we are heading over comes into view, just in time to be reversed.
Note that Bettel is only one of 27, and governs rather fewer people than the Mayor of Sheffield.
Perhaps that was it. I just (vaguely) remember one of the judges saying that he (strongly) accepted the gov counsel's position that A50 was irreversible.
See: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-abolishing-class-2-national-insurance-and-introducing-a-contributory-benefit-test-to-class-4-national-insurance-for-the-self-employed/the-abolition-of-class-2-national-insurance-introducing-a-benefit-test-into-class-4-national-insurance-for-the-self-employed
There will be a "new contributory benefit test for the self-employed."
with a proposed:
"create a new zero-rate band of Class 4 NICs on annual profits between the Small Profits Threshold (SPT, currently £5,965) – the point at which Class 2 is currently liable to be paid – and the Lower Profits Limit (LPL, currently £8,060) – the point at which Class 4 becomes payable"
All the Kippers, Farage in particular, that were saying 'By the way if we vote to leave they wont let us', and pointed to all the other little countries that were forced into staying, would be right yet again!
They should not yield or bend. We need to be taught a very serious and painful lesson here. And take it we must, to back out now would have us labelled as losers and quitters for all eternity.
so far they havent offered us a better deal
the stick rather than the carrot wont work
I'll be surprised if the mean absolute change in poll scores for the top two changers in the aftermath of the first debate is less than 3%.
Yes. If everyone agrees, there's nothing to argue about.
What would be really ironic is if they said: look, if you change your minds, you can have Cameron's deal...
Worried this might actually happen now.
Of course, they might want to shoot themselves in the foot out of an irrational wish to take a pot-shot at us. We shall see.
Bastards.
That day was yesterday for me, as I noted on this thread.
Care to respond to my earlier point, though:
The different is 'about the right level to reward enterprise and risk capital.'
People are allowed to change their minds, nations should be afforded the same courtesy
we have crossed the Rubicon
if cowardly Dave had stayed in place he could have swung a crap deal 2 which might have passed now its too big a gap
neither EU nor Uk can be seen to climb down
Remainers hoping for a reprieve just dont get that we are now damaged goods and can never be truly at the core
l'Albion perifde etc
Preferably in the form of a recent vote, if you don't mind
OK - International Women's Day is over so I can resume my responsibilities of cooking dinner - Garlic and Chili chicken in stir-fried mushrooms, yellow peppers and noodles.
Having said that, I cooked dinner yesterday too....
I always cook in my house, my wife doesnt bother
when's International Men;s Day ?
Mike you are beginning to sound very Effective!!
Remainers seeking to revisit the decision and Leavers paranoid about treachery are both equally wide of the mark. The country is going over Niagara in a barrel now.
364/365 ?