I am not convinced that the public outcry at the self employed moving towards paying the same NI as everyone else will be as strong as the media thinks. Particularly as most people know that many of the self employed are prone to take a chunk of their earnings in cash free of any tax, let alone NI.
Nor am I. Indeed, I'm really annoyed at the endless whinging that follows every Budget. We have a deficit. We have lots of demands on the public purse, often from the very same people who object to paying anything extra at all.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: it was pathetic that Osborne backed down in the face of lots of extremely rich people moaning that they would not be charitable if there wasn't a tax advantage for them. Now we have some of the self-employed complaining about contributing to the public purse on the same basis as the rest of us on PAYE. Where was their sympathy when higher rate taxpayers had their personal allowance removed or when those who saved for their pension got screwed over by the government?
FFS!
The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.
The problem is Tory backbenchers rather than the public, judging by what's happened so far on this one.
As a general point, I totally agree. The public needs to be confronted more on the harsh realities of funding NHS/Social Care in an ageing population. We just can't carry on with the idea we can have Scandinavian levels of state support without actually paying for it.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: ... The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.
Indeed. I would like to see 3% being added to the overall tax burden to lift it from 37% (IIRC) to 40% where it really needs to be. I would also hypothecate a good chunk of that, maybe all of it, for the NHS. After all people keep insisting that we spend more on the NHS....
Most employees don't come from overseas. I've been an employer for over a decade and have never hired anyone direct from overseas. I have however hired people straight from the dole - relieving the taxpayer from having to pay for them - and getting penalised by taxes on top of taxes for having done so.
I have always thought that the security and self-respect from having a job was a good thing.
I don't understand why an employer offering struggling people jobs is something that should be penalised and discouraged through the tax system.
According to the ONS in November last year 95% of the growth in employment in the previous year had been filled by workers not born in Britain. Now I don't have a problem with that as long as the employers take full responsibility for the welfare costs of those workers not only as long as they are emptying them but until they either leave the country or get another job rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so.
According to the ONS in Feb 17 there are 28.44 million UK nationals employed versus 3.48 million non-UK nationals. Non-UK nationals make up 10.9% of those employed, meaning that UK nationals make up 89.1% of those employed.
If you want to do a tax for hiring non-UK nationals then that is not Employers NI or any of the other myriad of burdens the state places upon employers.
If you actually bother to read what I wrote it said the 95% was the growth in jobs not the existing jobs.
But the basic principle on employees vs self employed should still apply. If as a company you wish to use a self employed person rather than an employee then you should pay the same costs in each case. Using contractors is perfectly valid when being done because of the short term nature of the work where you don't want the long term costs of an additional employee. But on a day to day basis there should not be a tax saving to a company because they use a contractor rather than an employee.
I would get rid of employer's national insurance contributions altogether. We want to encourage job creation, not discourage it.
We don't have to encourage it. It is going on so fast we are having to import workers to.meet the demand.
And personally I would far rather companies were paying NI than employees.
£1118 to lay the PVV at 1.95 if any heavy hitting lurkers have the bollocks
Paddies is offering 11/10 on the VVD, which is marginally better - especially when you include commissions. I've taken the maximum. (Which is obviously a derisory sum.)
Most employees don't come from overseas. I've been an employer for over a decade and have never hired anyone direct from overseas. I have however hired people straight from the dole - relieving the taxpayer from having to pay for them - and getting penalised by taxes on top of taxes for having done so.
I have always thought that the security and self-respect from having a job was a good thing.
I don't understand why an employer offering struggling people jobs is something that should be penalised and discouraged through the tax system.
According to the ONS in November last year 95% of the growth in employment in the previous year had been filled by workers not born in Britain. Now I don't have a problem with that as long as the employers take full responsibility for the welfare costs of those workers not only as long as they are emptying them but until they either leave the country or get another job rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so.
According to the ONS in Feb 17 there are 28.44 million UK nationals employed versus 3.48 million non-UK nationals. Non-UK nationals make up 10.9% of those employed, meaning that UK nationals make up 89.1% of those employed.
If you want to do a tax for hiring non-UK nationals then that is not Employers NI or any of the other myriad of burdens the state places upon employers.
If you actually bother to read what I wrote it said the 95% was the growth in jobs not the existing jobs.
But the basic principle on employees vs self employed should still apply. If as a company you wish to use a self employed person rather than an employee then you should pay the same costs in each case. Using contractors is perfectly valid when being done because of the short term nature of the work where you don't want the long term costs of an additional employee. But on a day to day basis there should not be a tax saving to a company because they use a contractor rather than an employee.
I would get rid of employer's national insurance contributions altogether. We want to encourage job creation, not discourage it.
We don't have to encourage it. It is going on so fast we are having to import workers to.meet the demand.
And personally I would far rather companies were paying NI than employees.
All payroll taxes fall ultimately on the individual.
I would get rid of employer's national insurance contributions altogether. We want to encourage job creation, not discourage it.
Will cost the exchequer quite a few quid though. How would you pay for it ? Roll some into income tax ?
Start by being honest about. National "Insurance" insures nothing. It funds next week's pension payments. Call it "Pension fund payments" and see how that goes down.
Really, it needs to rolled into Income Tax because that is really what it is.
I am not convinced that the public outcry at the self employed moving towards paying the same NI as everyone else will be as strong as the media thinks. Particularly as most people know that many of the self employed are prone to take a chunk of their earnings in cash free of any tax, let alone NI.
Nor am I. Indeed, I'm really annoyed at the endless whinging that follows every Budget. We have a deficit. We have lots of demands on the public purse, often from the very same people who object to paying anything extra at all.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: it was pathetic that Osborne backed down in the face of lots of extremely rich people moaning that they would not be charitable if there wasn't a tax advantage for them. Now we have some of the self-employed complaining about contributing to the public purse on the same basis as the rest of us on PAYE. Where was their sympathy when higher rate taxpayers had their personal allowance removed or when those who saved for their pension got screwed over by the government?
FFS!
The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.
About 35 years ago, I did the accounts and tax computation of a self-employed person who drove in a plush Mercedes [ his wife had another one ] and harangued me because his Profit for Tax purposes was over £3000. He really had a go at me including saying if he had to pay "that much", why was paying me ?
After a while I had had enough. I told him that the secretary who typed his accounts actually was paying more taxes than he was.
What most people do not know is that a sizable portion of a self-employed person's income is not even declared to begin with. Everyone is not a lawyer or an accountant. Do you think all of the earnings of a self-employed restaurant owner or the corner shop actually gets declared ?
£1118 to lay the PVV at 1.95 if any heavy hitting lurkers have the bollocks
Paddies is offering 11/10 on the VVD, which is marginally better - especially when you include commissions. I've taken the maximum. (Which is obviously a derisory sum.)
£1118 to lay the PVV at 1.95 if any heavy hitting lurkers have the bollocks
Paddies is offering 11/10 on the VVD, which is marginally better - especially when you include commissions. I've taken the maximum. (Which is obviously a derisory sum.)
Betfair at 2.2 with £52 left. Have just taken another ton myself......
VVD got 41% last election, and I know they've fallen but undecided voters tend to cling to what they know ultimately if they vote at all.
I am not convinced that the public outcry at the self employed moving towards paying the same NI as everyone else will be as strong as the media thinks. Particularly as most people know that many of the self employed are prone to take a chunk of their earnings in cash free of any tax, let alone NI.
Nor am I. Indeed, I'm really annoyed at the endless whinging that follows every Budget. We have a deficit. We have lots of demands on the public purse, often from the very same people who object to paying anything extra at all.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: it was pathetic that Osborne backed down in the face of lots of extremely rich people moaning that they would not be charitable if there wasn't a tax advantage for them. Now we have some of the self-employed complaining about contributing to the public purse on the same basis as the rest of us on PAYE. Where was their sympathy when higher rate taxpayers had their personal allowance removed or when those who saved for their pension got screwed over by the government?
FFS!
The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.
The problem is Tory backbenchers rather than the public, judging by what's happened so far on this one.
As a general point, I totally agree. The public needs to be confronted more on the harsh realities of funding NHS/Social Care in an ageing population. We just can't carry on with the idea we can have Scandinavian levels of state support without actually paying for it.
IMO, this affair is showing that the public ARE willing to support higher taxes in exchange for better public services, contrary to the right-wing media hysteria. In some ways, that should be quite heartening for the Left in future.
ALTHOUGH, I think the condition is that people want to be sure that their extra taxes will go straight to "the front-line" of public services, rather than being "wasted" on administration staff, through incompetence, etc. Clearly, Miliband's Labour didn't meet that condition, and Corbyn's Labour is nowhere close. If people aren't sure that the country will reap the benefits of extra taxation, then they'll naturally ask why they should give more up in the first place.
I am not convinced that the public outcry at the self employed moving towards paying the same NI as everyone else will be as strong as the media thinks. Particularly as most people know that many of the self employed are prone to take a chunk of their earnings in cash free of any tax, let alone NI.
Nor am I. Indeed, I'm really annoyed at the endless whinging that follows every Budget. We have a deficit. We have lots of demands on the public purse, often from the very same people who object to paying anything extra at all.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: it was pathetic that Osborne backed down in the face of lots of extremely rich people moaning that they would not be charitable if there wasn't a tax advantage for them. Now we have some of the self-employed complaining about contributing to the public purse on the same basis as the rest of us on PAYE. Where was their sympathy when higher rate taxpayers had their personal allowance removed or when those who saved for their pension got screwed over by the government?
FFS!
The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.
The problem is Tory backbenchers rather than the public, judging by what's happened so far on this one.
As a general point, I totally agree. The public needs to be confronted more on the harsh realities of funding NHS/Social Care in an ageing population. We just can't carry on with the idea we can have Scandinavian levels of state support without actually paying for it.
IMO, this affair is showing that the public ARE willing to support higher taxes in exchange for better public services, contrary to the right-wing media hysteria. In some ways, that should be quite heartening for the Left in future.
ALTHOUGH, I think the condition is that people want to be sure that their extra taxes will go straight to "the front-line" of public services, rather than being "wasted" on administration staff, through incompetence, etc. Clearly, Miliband's Labour didn't meet that condition, and Corbyn's Labour is nowhere close.
We won't live forever. We would pay every penny earned into runaway NHS the way we are going. Death is guaranteed, Hospitals full of old women being kept alive. Bonkers.
I noted the German authorities spin on the axe attacker last night with the comment of former Yugoslavia, a country that hasn't existed for 20 years...And now it has been revealed the individual is from Kosovo. I wonder why they didn't just mention that in the first place! (rhetorical question)
Perhaps they weren't sure from which of the eight constituent parts of the 'former Yugoslavia' he came from?
'The term "former Yugoslavia" (bivša Jugoslavija) is now commonly used retrospectively.'
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
I noted the German authorities spin on the axe attacker last night with the comment of former Yugoslavia, a country that hasn't existed for 20 years...And now it has been revealed the individual is from Kosovo. I wonder why they didn't just mention that in the first place! (rhetorical question)
Perhaps they weren't sure from which of the eight constituent parts of the 'former Yugoslavia' he came from?
'The term "former Yugoslavia" (bivša Jugoslavija) is now commonly used retrospectively.'
One man has been arrested. The 36-year-old suspect from the former Yugoslavia suffers from psychological problems, Duesseldorf police said.
Is he called Dave perchance?
I expect the facts will emerge soon enough, ‘former Yugoslav’ looks ripe for amendment...
I have an open mind - but have noticed several occasions from various countries where an act that originally had been reported as nothing to do with terrorism actually turned out to be the opposite.
I am not convinced that the public outcry at the self employed moving towards paying the same NI as everyone else will be as strong as the media thinks. Particularly as most people know that many of the self employed are prone to take a chunk of their earnings in cash free of any tax, let alone NI.
Nor am I. Indeed, I'm really annoyed at the endless whinging that follows every Budget. We have a deficit. We have lots of demands on the public purse, often from the very same people who object to paying anything extra at all.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: it was pathetic that Osborne backed down in the face of lots of extremely rich people moaning that they would not be charitable if there wasn't a tax advantage for them. Now we have some of the self-employed complaining about contributing to the public purse on the same basis as the rest of us on PAYE. Where was their sympathy when higher rate taxpayers had their personal allowance removed or when those who saved for their pension got screwed over by the government?
FFS!
The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.
The problem is Tory backbenchers rather than the public, judging by what's happened so far on this one.
As a general point, I totally agree. The public needs to be confronted more on the harsh realities of funding NHS/Social Care in an ageing population. We just can't carry on with the idea we can have Scandinavian levels of state support without actually paying for it.
IMO, this affair is showing that the public ARE willing to support higher taxes in exchange for better public services, contrary to the right-wing media hysteria. In some ways, that should be quite heartening for the Left in future.
ALTHOUGH, I think the condition is that people want to be sure that their extra taxes will go straight to "the front-line" of public services, rather than being "wasted" on administration staff, through incompetence, etc. Clearly, Miliband's Labour didn't meet that condition, and Corbyn's Labour is nowhere close.
We won't live forever. We would pay every penny earned into runaway NHS the way we are going. Death is guaranteed, Hospitals full of old women being kept alive. Bonkers.
All payroll taxes fall ultimately on the individual.
Not directly and not uniformly. What you are suggesting is that it is better to tax the individual directly so that the limited number of generally wealthier people who benefit from lower taxes on companies can benefit even more.
As you know I would slash the size of the state dramatically if I had the chance. But as long as we have to have taxes then the burden should be shared equally and not targeted on individuals as opposed to companies.
If you actually bother to read what I wrote it said the 95% was the growth in jobs not the existing jobs.
But the basic principle on employees vs self employed should still apply. If as a company you wish to use a self employed person rather than an employee then you should pay the same costs in each case. Using contractors is perfectly valid when being done because of the short term nature of the work where you don't want the long term costs of an additional employee. But on a day to day basis there should not be a tax saving to a company because they use a contractor rather than an employee.
If you actually bother to read what you replied to I had said that "most employees don't come from overseas" and you replied with that disingenuous growth figure. The problem with that growth figures is it is a net figure so if 10 new jobs are created and 9 go to Brits who leave their old job and 1 goes to a migrant then only the migrant job is counted in the net figures. Doesn't change the fact that most jobs go to Brits. The solution to dealing with companies that hire from outside the UK (if you want to put a burden on those companies) is to do what other nations require which is to make companies "sponsor" people that come into the country.
The problem with your solution is that it makes no difference to me running a small business if that contractor is self-employed or a team of people. Lets say I hire an electrician to do a job and the electrician that comes is part of a team, his employer pays his employer's NI not me. If the one that comes is self-employed, why should I be responsible for his employer's NI?
I noted the German authorities spin on the axe attacker last night with the comment of former Yugoslavia, a country that hasn't existed for 20 years...And now it has been revealed the individual is from Kosovo. I wonder why they didn't just mention that in the first place! (rhetorical question)
Perhaps they weren't sure from which of the eight constituent parts of the 'former Yugoslavia' he came from?
'The term "former Yugoslavia" (bivša Jugoslavija) is now commonly used retrospectively.'
Most employees don't come from overseas. I've been an employer for over a decade and have never hired anyone direct from overseas. I have however hired people straight from the dole - relieving the taxpayer from having to pay for them - and getting penalised by taxes on top of taxes for having done so.
I have always thought that the security and self-respect from having a job was a good thing.
I don't understand why an employer offering struggling people jobs is something that should be penalised and discouraged through the tax system.
According to the ONS in November last year 95% of the growth in employment in the previous year had been filled by workers not born in Britain. Now I don't have a problem with that as long as the employers take full responsibility for the welfare costs of those workers not only as long as they are emptying them but until they either leave the country or get another job rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so.
If you want to do a tax for hiring non-UK nationals then that is not Employers NI or any of the other myriad of burdens the state places upon employers.
But the basic principle on employees vs self employed should still apply. If as a company you wish to use a self employed person rather than an employee then you should pay the same costs in each case. Using contractors is perfectly valid when being done because of the short term nature of the work where you don't want the long term costs of an additional employee. But on a day to day basis there should not be a tax saving to a company because they use a contractor rather than an employee.
I would get rid of employer's national insurance contributions altogether. We want to encourage job creation, not discourage it.
We don't have to encourage it. It is going on so fast we are having to import workers to.meet the demand.
And personally I would far rather companies were paying NI than employees.
All payroll taxes fall ultimately on the individual.
At the very least, you'd need a transitional period of a couple of years where employees saw their salaries being grossed up for E'ers NIC on their payslips, though. I think that might cause a few eyebrows raised when people figured out what the effective rate of tax they were paying was.
Re Lib Dems - they took a couple of seats off Tories in Oxfordshire last night, yet vote was down in that Derby seat, but there doesn't seem to be much upward movement on You Gov. They don't appear to be able to break above 10%, Farron is touted as a good organiser, but if LDs gains are small at locals, will he be turfed out, or are there no viable alternatives?
The Lib Dems should do well in May in places like Surrey, South Cambridgeshire, and the M3 and M4 corridors. Anywhere that there was a big middle class Remain vote. They'll struggle in working class areas and areas that had a big Leave vote. They should come out of the elections with a reasonable net gain.
I think that's absolutely right. I think they'll manage a high teens NEV share, and pass UKIP. (Who, I suspect, will see their share halve and lose most of their councillors.)
It is worth remembering with the LDs that although they saw their vote share hammered in 2013, they actually saw only very modest losses of councillors, and and actually made gains in some places. For this reason, I suspect that their gains will be quite limited: perhaps 50-100 net gains across the country.
From a LibDem Watch point of view, next year (assuming there isn't a General Election in the interim) will be much more interesting, as that's when the London boroughs have their elections. Will the LD resurgence come through in Richmond and Kingston - where losing the council presaged the loss of local MPs?
Can they also come back in Camden, Islington, and Hornsey & Wood Green, as the party of Remain (probably yes, IMO).
Their plan is to hit all Remain parts of London. Their openisng statement on teh doorstep is: Do you have friends in Europe?' WTF!
I noted the German authorities spin on the axe attacker last night with the comment of former Yugoslavia, a country that hasn't existed for 20 years...And now it has been revealed the individual is from Kosovo. I wonder why they didn't just mention that in the first place! (rhetorical question)
Perhaps they weren't sure from which of the eight constituent parts of the 'former Yugoslavia' he came from?
'The term "former Yugoslavia" (bivša Jugoslavija) is now commonly used retrospectively.'
Tell me. Is Kosovo a muslim country?
Since you're evidently too lazy to take 5 seconds to search on Wiki..
'Kosovo has no official religion. The constitution establishes Kosovo as a secular state that is neutral in matters of religious beliefs and where everyone is equal before the law and freedom to belief, conscience and religion is guaranteed.
According to 2013–2015 Freedom of Thought reports by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, Kosovo ranked first in the Balkans and ninth in the world as "Free and equal" for tolerance towards religion and atheism.'
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Holiday pay is an utterly stupid argument as I stated on Wednesday. But you can be sat on the beach as your pay arrives if self employed. At the end of this month I will be in Barbados as a very large payment hits first the company account and then a large part of it hits the current account.
If you actually bother to read what I wrote it said the 95% was the growth in jobs not the existing jobs.
But the basic principle on employees vs self employed should still apply. If as a company you wish to use a self employed person rather than an employee then you should pay the same costs in each case. Using contractors is perfectly valid when being done because of the short term nature of the work where you don't want the long term costs of an additional employee. But on a day to day basis there should not be a tax saving to a company because they use a contractor rather than an employee.
If you actually bother to read what you replied to I had said that "most employees don't come from overseas" and you replied with that disingenuous growth figure. The problem with that growth figures is it is a net figure so if 10 new jobs are created and 9 go to Brits who leave their old job and 1 goes to a migrant then only the migrant job is counted in the net figures. Doesn't change the fact that most jobs go to Brits. The solution to dealing with companies that hire from outside the UK (if you want to put a burden on those companies) is to do what other nations require which is to make companies "sponsor" people that come into the country.
The problem with your solution is that it makes no difference to me running a small business if that contractor is self-employed or a team of people. Lets say I hire an electrician to do a job and the electrician that comes is part of a team, his employer pays his employer's NI not me. If the one that comes is self-employed, why should I be responsible for his employer's NI?
Because he is doing the same job and the same tax burden should apply. If that is not the case and the SE electrician ends up giving to pay 25% NI on his income then he is not going to stay in business very long.
I am not convinced that the public outcry at the self employed moving towards paying the same NI as everyone else will be as strong as the media thinks. Particularly as most people know that many of the self employed are prone to take a chunk of their earnings in cash free of any tax, let alone NI.
Nor am I. Indeed, I'm really annoyed at the endless whinging that follows every Budget. We have a deficit. We have lots of demands on the public purse, often from the very same people who object to paying anything extra at all.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: it was pathetic that Osborne backed down in the face of lots of extremely rich people moaning that they would not be charitable if there wasn't a tax advantage for them. Now we have some of the self-employed complaining about contributing to the public purse on the same basis as the rest of us on PAYE. Where was their sympathy when higher rate taxpayers had their personal allowance removed or when those who saved for their pension got screwed over by the government?
FFS!
The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.
The problem is Tory backbenchers rather than the public, judging by what's happened so far on this one.
As a general point, I totally agree. The public needs to be confronted more on the harsh realities of funding NHS/Social Care in an ageing population. We just can't carry on with the idea we can have Scandinavian levels of state support without actually paying for it.
IMO, this affair is showing that the public ARE willing to support higher taxes in exchange for better public services, contrary to the right-wing media hysteria. In some ways, that should be quite heartening for the Left in future.
ALTHOUGH, I think the condition is that people want to be sure that their extra taxes will go straight to "the front-line" of public services, rather than being "wasted" on administration staff, through incompetence, etc. Clearly, Miliband's Labour didn't meet that condition, and Corbyn's Labour is nowhere close.
We won't live forever. We would pay every penny earned into runaway NHS the way we are going. Death is guaranteed, Hospitals full of old women being kept alive. Bonkers.
The horror of it!
Poor dears are humiliated; urinating in a loo affixed to a wheelchair behind a curtain as their relatives listen on. Let them die with dignity.
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Bob's paying back his student loan, which costs him £1300 a year. There's no end in sight for Bob on that as his debt is £50,000 going up by inflation + 3%. His employer is also paying £3700 for the pleasure of employing him. In addition Bob is paying £800 more than he would be if he was self employed on the same income. He's also paying £2800 a year to receive a pension that is worth half of what the more senior employees in his firm get since the final salary scheme was closed.
Bob's a young graduate employee. Don't be like Bob, be old, self employed and definitely avoid having gone to Uni recently.
I noted the German authorities spin on the axe attacker last night with the comment of former Yugoslavia, a country that hasn't existed for 20 years...And now it has been revealed the individual is from Kosovo. I wonder why they didn't just mention that in the first place! (rhetorical question)
Perhaps they weren't sure from which of the eight constituent parts of the 'former Yugoslavia' he came from?
'The term "former Yugoslavia" (bivša Jugoslavija) is now commonly used retrospectively.'
I am not convinced that the public outcry at the self employed moving towards paying the same NI as everyone else will be as strong as the media thinks. Particularly as most people know that many of the self employed are prone to take a chunk of their earnings in cash free of any tax, let alone NI.
Nor am I. Indeed, I'm really annoyed at the endless whinging that follows every Budget. We have a deficit. We have lots of demands on the public purse, often from the very same people who object to paying anything extra at all.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: it was pathetic that Osborne backed down in the face of lots of extremely rich people moaning that they would not be charitable if there wasn't a tax advantage for them. Now we have some of the self-employed complaining about contributing to the public purse on the same basis as the rest of us on PAYE. Where was their sympathy when higher rate taxpayers had their personal allowance removed or when those who saved for their pension got screwed over by the government?
FFS!
The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.
The problem is Tory backbenchers rather than the public, judging by what's happened so far on this one.
As a general point, I totally agree. The public needs to be confronted more on the harsh realities of funding NHS/Social Care in an ageing population. We just can't carry on with the idea we can have Scandinavian levels of state support without actually paying for it.
IMO, this affair is showing that the public ARE willing to support higher taxes in exchange for better public services, contrary to the right-wing media hysteria. In some ways, that should be quite heartening for the Left in future.
ALTHOUGH, I think the condition is that people want to be sure that their extra taxes will go straight to "the front-line" of public services, rather than being "wasted" on administration staff, through incompetence, etc. Clearly, Miliband's Labour didn't meet that condition, and Corbyn's Labour is nowhere close.
We won't live forever. We would pay every penny earned into runaway NHS the way we are going. Death is guaranteed, Hospitals full of old women being kept alive. Bonkers.
The horror of it!
Poor dears are humiliated; urinating in a loo affixed to a wheelchair behind a curtain as their relatives listen on. Let them die with dignity.
Come on, prime Tory & Unionist voting fodder waiting to be reaped.
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Try the bit about Bob being diagnosed with cancer and needing treatment but if he goes off sick and is self employed he doesnt earn any money and his business goes bust.
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Try the bit about Bob being diagnosed with cancer and needing treatment but if he goes off sick and is self employed he doesnt earn any money and his business goes bust.
Bob should be charging enough to allow for time off due to sickness?
I agree though in a sense... Self employed generally speaking have it tougher. Doesn't mean this NI rise is unfair though.
I am not convinced that the public outcry at the self employed moving towards paying the same NI as everyone else will be as strong as the media thinks. Particularly as most people know that many of the self employed are prone to take a chunk of their earnings in cash free of any tax, let alone NI.
Nor am I. Indeed, I'm really annoyed at the endless whinging that follows every Budget. We have a deficit. We have lots of demands on the public purse, often from the very same people who object to paying anything extra at all.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: it was pathetic that Osborne backed down in the face of lots of extremely rich people moaning that they would not be charitable if there wasn't a tax advantage for them. Now we have some of the self-employed complaining about contributing to the public purse on the same basis as the rest of us on PAYE. Where was their sympathy when higher rate taxpayers had their personal allowance removed or when those who saved for their pension got screwed over by the government?
FFS!
The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.
If you're unhappy with whinging on the issue, I recommend you don't turn to the letters page of today's Times which is a masterclass on sectional interest special pleading. It will do nothing for your blood pressure.
I noted the German authorities spin on the axe attacker last night with the comment of former Yugoslavia, a country that hasn't existed for 20 years...And now it has been revealed the individual is from Kosovo. I wonder why they didn't just mention that in the first place! (rhetorical question)
Perhaps they weren't sure from which of the eight constituent parts of the 'former Yugoslavia' he came from?
'The term "former Yugoslavia" (bivša Jugoslavija) is now commonly used retrospectively.'
Tell me. Is Kosovo a muslim country?
Since you're evidently too lazy to take 5 seconds to search on Wiki..
'Kosovo has no official religion. The constitution establishes Kosovo as a secular state that is neutral in matters of religious beliefs and where everyone is equal before the law and freedom to belief, conscience and religion is guaranteed.
According to 2013–2015 Freedom of Thought reports by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, Kosovo ranked first in the Balkans and ninth in the world as "Free and equal" for tolerance towards religion and atheism.'
Editorial summary - it's not that trolls are perfectly normal people who change personality online. They're really like that.
Not sure that I agree with your summary, Nick. He says:
"Many seemed quite normal. They had families and looked like nice people, but the comments they were writing in a public space were so extreme. There was a disconnect.”
To me that is a very Guardianesque definition of "troll", who are mainly people with strong non-Liberal opinions and a habit of expressing them unnuanced:
1 - 50 year old man with blunt opinions about immigration and Muslims. 2 - 21 year old woman who spends her time having goes at female celebrities. Used to getting blowback. “But that doesn’t bother me,” she says. “I have a lot of sex so I can’t be that ugly.” 3 - 49 year old man who is an anti-Israel activist / conspiracy theorist / pro-gun activist. Interesting combination. 4 - 42-year old man who is a pro-gun activist / Trump supporter. “It’s the first time since 9/11 that I feel our country is back on track, back where it belongs.” 5 - 51 year old Russian woman. Student. "She wants to make it clear that she doesn’t see LGBT people as her enemy, but that they have “a defect.”" 6 - 42 year old Norwegian man. Dislikes Muslims and immigration, but changing opinions. After the arrival of a Muslim man at work. “He’s OK,” he says, “so my issues with immigration are going away. If I met my former self in a discussion forum now, I’d probably get into an argument with him.”
The author claims that he couldn't get "misogynists" to talk publicly. I would say that 2 qualifies by the current definition of misogynist.
An old style troll was an online version of ringing the doorbell and running away, or driving argments in circles. The new style troll abuses individuals.
This list is people with whom the author strongly agrees who won't keep quiet ie we have an attempt at marginalisation.
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Try the bit about Bob being diagnosed with cancer and needing treatment but if he goes off sick and is self employed he doesnt earn any money and his business goes bust.
Totally agree Richard the difference working in the public sector and self employment is huge in the position of serious illness.
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Try the bit about Bob being diagnosed with cancer and needing treatment but if he goes off sick and is self employed he doesnt earn any money and his business goes bust.
Presumably Bob has used some of the savings available to the self-employed to purchase income protection insurance.....
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Try the bit about Bob being diagnosed with cancer and needing treatment but if he goes off sick and is self employed he doesnt earn any money and his business goes bust.
The harsh answer is, he should have insured himself against exactly that contingency.
I noted the German authorities spin on the axe attacker last night with the comment of former Yugoslavia, a country that hasn't existed for 20 years...And now it has been revealed the individual is from Kosovo. I wonder why they didn't just mention that in the first place! (rhetorical question)
Perhaps they weren't sure from which of the eight constituent parts of the 'former Yugoslavia' he came from?
'The term "former Yugoslavia" (bivša Jugoslavija) is now commonly used retrospectively.'
Tell me. Is Kosovo a muslim country?
I was reading somewhere that per head of population more Bosnians have gone to fight for ISIS than any other European country.
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Try the bit about Bob being diagnosed with cancer and needing treatment but if he goes off sick and is self employed he doesnt earn any money and his business goes bust.
Presumably Bob has used some of the savings available to the self-employed to purchase income protection insurance.....
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Try the bit about Bob being diagnosed with cancer and needing treatment but if he goes off sick and is self employed he doesnt earn any money and his business goes bust.
The harsh answer is, he should have insured himself against exactly that contingency.
Which is exactly what we do. So there is a very large additional cost to small companies that is not borne by the larger ones.
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Try the bit about Bob being diagnosed with cancer and needing treatment but if he goes off sick and is self employed he doesnt earn any money and his business goes bust.
Bob should be charging enough to allow for time off due to sickness?
I agree though in a sense... Self employed generally speaking have it tougher. Doesn't mean this NI rise is unfair though.
I have not said it is. I said I agreed with it yesterday. This is an argument about making companies pay their fair share when they use the self employed or contractors instead of their own employees as a means of saving money.
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Try the bit about Bob being diagnosed with cancer and needing treatment but if he goes off sick and is self employed he doesnt earn any money and his business goes bust.
Presumably Bob has used some of the savings available to the self-employed to purchase income protection insurance.....
If you actually bother to read what I wrote it said the 95% was the growth in jobs not the existing jobs.
But the basic principle on employees vs self employed should still apply. If as a company you wish to use a self employed person rather than an employee then you should pay the same costs in each case. Using contractors is perfectly valid when being done because of the short term nature of the work where you don't want the long term costs of an additional employee. But on a day to day basis there should not be a tax saving to a company because they use a contractor rather than an employee.
If you actually bother to read what you replied to I had said that "most employees don't come from overseas" and you replied with that disingenuous growth figure. The problem with that growth figures is it is a net figure so if 10 new jobs are created and 9 go to Brits who leave their old job and 1 goes to a migrant then only the migrant job is counted in the net figures. Doesn't change the fact that most jobs go to Brits. The solution to dealing with companies that hire from outside the UK (if you want to put a burden on those companies) is to do what other nations require which is to make companies "sponsor" people that come into the country.
The problem with your solution is that it makes no difference to me running a small business if that contractor is self-employed or a team of people. Lets say I hire an electrician to do a job and the electrician that comes is part of a team, his employer pays his employer's NI not me. If the one that comes is self-employed, why should I be responsible for his employer's NI?
Because he is doing the same job and the same tax burden should apply. If that is not the case and the SE electrician ends up giving to pay 25% NI on his income then he is not going to stay in business very long.
If you want employers NI on the self-employed the only viable solution is for the self-employed electrician to pay employers NI on any income he makes for himself and then to pass that on to me as part of his quotation - the same as any other limited liability company does for any other employees.
A while back I hired an electrician to do a job. He gave me a VAT invoice for his company which I duly paid, job done. On the day he came with two colleagues. Presumably he's paid employers NI for his colleagues, but is self-employed himself. I have no knowledge on his business model or overheads. I have no clue how much income he made himself for the job and no right or ability to know that either. How am I supposed to pay employer's NI for him without knowing how much income he made?.
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Try the bit about Bob being diagnosed with cancer and needing treatment but if he goes off sick and is self employed he doesnt earn any money and his business goes bust.
The harsh answer is, he should have insured himself against exactly that contingency.
Which is exactly what we do. So there is a very large additional cost to small companies that is not borne by the larger ones.
And it is very large. From memory, the premiums for the self-employed are way higher than they are for those on PAYE.
I noted the German authorities spin on the axe attacker last night with the comment of former Yugoslavia, a country that hasn't existed for 20 years...And now it has been revealed the individual is from Kosovo. I wonder why they didn't just mention that in the first place! (rhetorical question)
Perhaps they weren't sure from which of the eight constituent parts of the 'former Yugoslavia' he came from?
'The term "former Yugoslavia" (bivša Jugoslavija) is now commonly used retrospectively.'
Tell me. Is Kosovo a muslim country?
I was reading somewhere that per head of population more Bosnians have gone to fight for ISIS than any other European country.
Unfortunately, Bosnia was heavily radicalised when the west stood aside and allowed the Serbs to slaughter tens of thousands of civilian Bosnian men, women and children during the Yugoslav civil war.
I noted the German authorities spin on the axe attacker last night with the comment of former Yugoslavia, a country that hasn't existed for 20 years...And now it has been revealed the individual is from Kosovo. I wonder why they didn't just mention that in the first place! (rhetorical question)
Perhaps they weren't sure from which of the eight constituent parts of the 'former Yugoslavia' he came from?
'The term "former Yugoslavia" (bivša Jugoslavija) is now commonly used retrospectively.'
Tell me. Is Kosovo a muslim country?
Since you're evidently too lazy to take 5 seconds to search on Wiki..
'Kosovo has no official religion. The constitution establishes Kosovo as a secular state that is neutral in matters of religious beliefs and where everyone is equal before the law and freedom to belief, conscience and religion is guaranteed.
According to 2013–2015 Freedom of Thought reports by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, Kosovo ranked first in the Balkans and ninth in the world as "Free and equal" for tolerance towards religion and atheism.'
Can I gently suggest that that is an estimate of tolerance, and an incomplete answer?
Wiki also includes the actual numbers from the 2011 Census:
Nope, Fullfact are being utterly dishonest by misquoting the Times article. The article stated correctly that 95% of the growth in jobs had been taken by those not born in the UK. The Fullfact article changes that claim to non British which brings it down to just over 50%. It is simply Fullfact trying to nullify a statistic they don't like by changing the terms to something more palatable and then claiming it is wrong.
I am not convinced that the public outcry at the self employed moving towards paying the same NI as everyone else will be as strong as the media thinks. Particularly as most people know that many of the self employed are prone to take a chunk of their earnings in cash free of any tax, let alone NI.
Nor am I. Indeed, I'm really annoyed at the endless whinging that follows every Budget. We have a deficit. We have lots of demands on the public purse, often from the very same people who object to paying anything extra at all.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: it was pathetic that Osborne backed down in the face of lots of extremely rich people moaning that they would not be charitable if there wasn't a tax advantage for them. Now we have some of the self-employed complaining about contributing to the public purse on the same basis as the rest of us on PAYE. Where was their sympathy when higher rate taxpayers had their personal allowance removed or when those who saved for their pension got screwed over by the government?
FFS!
The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.
The problem is Tory backbenchers rather than the public, judging by what's happened so far on this one.
As a general point, I totally agree. The public needs to be confronted more on the harsh realities of funding NHS/Social Care in an ageing population. We just can't carry on with the idea we can have Scandinavian levels of state support without actually paying for it.
Absolutely. It seems quite notable, in this instance, that the public are currently in favour but the Tories are still too scared to push ahead on what they presumably thought was a good plan among the leadership, but the general point is inarguable as it applies to the public.
Nope, Fullfact are being utterly dishonest by misquoting the Times article. The article stated correctly that 95% of the growth in jobs had been taken by those not born in the UK. The Fullfact article changes that claim to non British which brings it down to just over 50%. It is simply Fullfact trying to nullify a statistic they don't like by changing the terms to something more palatable and then claiming it is wrong.
This is the problem. Who will fact check the fact checkers?
The truth is that these self-appointed "guardians of the absolute truths" are simply human beings with opinions, agendas and a need to pay their bills. Just like the rest of us.
And yet Facebook and others are touting their use as being the Next Big Thing on social media news posts.
Nope, Fullfact are being utterly dishonest by misquoting the Times article. The article stated correctly that 95% of the growth in jobs had been taken by those not born in the UK. The Fullfact article changes that claim to non British which brings it down to just over 50%. It is simply Fullfact trying to nullify a statistic they don't like by changing the terms to something more palatable and then claiming it is wrong.
This is the problem. Who will fact check the fact checkers?
The truth is that these self-appointed "guardians of the absolute truths" are simply human beings with opinions, agendas and a need to pay their bills. Just like the rest of us.
And yet Facebook and others are touting their use as being the Next Big Thing on social media news posts.
It all depends what you regard as a meaningful statistic. I doubt that many Times readers were thinking of Boris Johnson and Cliff Richard when they read that "95%" statistic.
Something else that has peeved me over this whole employee v self employed thing:
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Try the bit about Bob being diagnosed with cancer and needing treatment but if he goes off sick and is self employed he doesnt earn any money and his business goes bust.
Bob should be charging enough to allow for time off due to sickness?
I agree though in a sense... Self employed generally speaking have it tougher. Doesn't mean this NI rise is unfair though.
Will it make the UK poorer because firms will find it harder to find short term skills that they need?
Nope, Fullfact are being utterly dishonest by misquoting the Times article. The article stated correctly that 95% of the growth in jobs had been taken by those not born in the UK. The Fullfact article changes that claim to non British which brings it down to just over 50%. It is simply Fullfact trying to nullify a statistic they don't like by changing the terms to something more palatable and then claiming it is wrong.
So you have an issue with jobs going to Brits born overseas? When I was younger I lived for a few years in Australia, my brother who is 16 years younger than me was born while we were there. He is a British citizen, not an Australian and has no right to live or work in Australia. He has also lived in the UK since he was 15 months old (when we returned home to the UK). He turned 18 last year. Is there an issue with him joining the workforce since he's a British citizen born overseas?
Nope, Fullfact are being utterly dishonest by misquoting the Times article. The article stated correctly that 95% of the growth in jobs had been taken by those not born in the UK. The Fullfact article changes that claim to non British which brings it down to just over 50%. It is simply Fullfact trying to nullify a statistic they don't like by changing the terms to something more palatable and then claiming it is wrong.
This is the problem. Who will fact check the fact checkers?
The truth is that these self-appointed "guardians of the absolute truths" are simply human beings with opinions, agendas and a need to pay their bills. Just like the rest of us.
And yet Facebook and others are touting their use as being the Next Big Thing on social media news posts.
It all depends what you regard as a meaningful statistic. I doubt that many Times readers were thinking of Boris Johnson and Cliff Richard when they read that "95%" statistic.
Harry Webb from Uttar Pradesh, and New York born Alexander De Pfeffel Johnson you say ?
Nope, Fullfact are being utterly dishonest by misquoting the Times article. The article stated correctly that 95% of the growth in jobs had been taken by those not born in the UK. The Fullfact article changes that claim to non British which brings it down to just over 50%. It is simply Fullfact trying to nullify a statistic they don't like by changing the terms to something more palatable and then claiming it is wrong.
So you have an issue with jobs going to Brits born overseas? When I was younger I lived for a few years in Australia, my brother who is 16 years younger than me was born while we were there. He is a British citizen, not an Australian and has no right to live or work in Australia. He has also lived in the UK since he was 15 months old (when we returned home to the UK). He turned 18 last year. Is there an issue with him joining the workforce since he's a British citizen born overseas?
I have no problem with it at all as long as the employers take responsibility when they import labour. And you know as well as I do that the data is not relating to the tiny number of people in your brother's situation.
Nope, Fullfact are being utterly dishonest by misquoting the Times article. The article stated correctly that 95% of the growth in jobs had been taken by those not born in the UK. The Fullfact article changes that claim to non British which brings it down to just over 50%. It is simply Fullfact trying to nullify a statistic they don't like by changing the terms to something more palatable and then claiming it is wrong.
It seems to me that Fullfact's problem was with the headline writer's definition of foreign. While I agree that saying foreign-born is a clearer statement, but the basic premise of the article was correct and Fullfact's objection to it gives the impression that it wasn't.
What most people do not know is that a sizable portion of a self-employed person's income is not even declared to begin with. Everyone is not a lawyer or an accountant. Do you think all of the earnings of a self-employed restaurant owner or the corner shop actually gets declared ?
Over the years I had 2 solicitors who actively encouraged me to pay in cash, no invoice. Almost everyone's on the make. Instinctively I want to criticise Hammond, but he was probably right with this.
Nope, Fullfact are being utterly dishonest by misquoting the Times article. The article stated correctly that 95% of the growth in jobs had been taken by those not born in the UK. The Fullfact article changes that claim to non British which brings it down to just over 50%. It is simply Fullfact trying to nullify a statistic they don't like by changing the terms to something more palatable and then claiming it is wrong.
I think Times changed their headline in response to fullfact.
But the key thing is you can't compare the figures like that.
Everybody in my work is saying 'about time'... we have 'employees' employed - with full sick cover and 26 annual holidays - working as 'contractors'. It's purely a ruse to save NI contributions. My mate in work pays over half as much income tax as me. We do the same job.
Excellent polling for Hammond there, must admit. Particularly good numbers amongst Lib Dem voters - I am left wondering if this is a fight Tim Farron shouldn't really be having. Far better to focus on the £2 billion for social care being 'not enough' I think (As Lamb is doing)
I know everyone likes a story about politicians breaking promises, but I really have been astounded how overblown some media commentators have been on this NI stuff - they are acting like It is unprecedented, that it is a breach of contract or the like. I'm all for making the Tories squirm for changing tack, if they hold firm on this, to explain it, not weasel out of facing up to breaking the promise, but it is pretty over the top when we all know parties break promises - the argument should be about why they are doing it (bad policy, changed situation) and if it is a good thing more than 'wah wah, we made a promise to the voters'.
I am not convinced that the public outcry at the self employed moving towards paying the same NI as everyone else will be as strong as the media thinks. Particularly as most people know that many of the self employed are prone to take a chunk of their earnings in cash free of any tax, let alone NI.
Nor am I. Indeed, I'm really annoyed at the endless whinging that follows every Budget. We have a deficit. We have lots of demands on the public purse, often from the very same people who object to paying anything extra at all.
I wish governments had the balls to face down these people: it was pathetic that Osborne backed down in the face of lots of extremely rich people moaning that they would not be charitable if there wasn't a tax advantage for them. Now we have some of the self-employed complaining about contributing to the public purse on the same basis as the rest of us on PAYE. Where was their sympathy when higher rate taxpayers had their personal allowance removed or when those who saved for their pension got screwed over by the government?
FFS!
The reality is that with a big deficit and endless - and possibly over-inflated and unrealistic - expectations of the public sector - we are all going to have to pay more.
The problem is Tory backbenchers rather than the public, judging by what's happened so far on this one.
As a general point, I totally agree. The public needs to be confronted more on the harsh realities of funding NHS/Social Care in an ageing population. We just can't carry on with the idea we can have Scandinavian levels of state support without actually paying for it.
Absolutely. It seems quite notable, in this instance, that the public are currently in favour but the Tories are still too scared to push ahead on what they presumably thought was a good plan among the leadership, but the general point is inarguable as it applies to the public.
I think it was basically an OK idea, badly executed. Abolishing Class 2 NI will save red tape and apparently benefit someone under the tax threshold of ~£11k. Why wasn't more made of this?
The fact remains though that the self-employed have insurances they have to pay (e.g. my PI) and premiums they should pay and can't afford to (critical illness insurance) so they could do with more liberal rules on expenses and averaging net income between tax years. The rules don't allow this except for farmers.
It's time I think for pensioners to pay NI or whatever it's called if it becomes a compulsory insurance payment to cover you if you become ill, old or disabled... Social Security Contributions? As before, not payable on under ~£11k.
Utterly OT: just watching some early footage (Alpha) of Shadow of War (Never did get around to getting Shadow of Mordor) and it looks pretty intriguing. The Nemesis system's been beefed up, so you have your own allies (orcs, goblins etc) and the personal grudges etc appear to be in place again.
Nope, Fullfact are being utterly dishonest by misquoting the Times article. The article stated correctly that 95% of the growth in jobs had been taken by those not born in the UK. The Fullfact article changes that claim to non British which brings it down to just over 50%. It is simply Fullfact trying to nullify a statistic they don't like by changing the terms to something more palatable and then claiming it is wrong.
So you have an issue with jobs going to Brits born overseas? When I was younger I lived for a few years in Australia, my brother who is 16 years younger than me was born while we were there. He is a British citizen, not an Australian and has no right to live or work in Australia. He has also lived in the UK since he was 15 months old (when we returned home to the UK). He turned 18 last year. Is there an issue with him joining the workforce since he's a British citizen born overseas?
I have no problem with it at all as long as the employers take responsibility when they import labour. And you know as well as I do that the data is not relating to the tiny number of people in your brother's situation.
Employers hiring British citizens aren't importing labour. These are already our citizens. Employers hiring migrants already living here and already have right to work here aren't importing labour either. Employers hiring non Brits from overseas are importing labour. The solution to companies importing labour if you want one is a sponsorship arrangement like other nations already have.
My wife is in a similar situation, born and bred in South Africa but her father is from Edinburgh and she is dual nationality British/South African. She moved here as a British citizen then looked for work. Also appears in your stats. Considering citizenship is available to anyone born overseas with parents or grandparents who are British these are not untypical cases or a tiny number.
Excellent polling for Hammond there, must admit. Particularly good numbers amongst Lib Dem voters - I am left wondering if this is a fight Tim Farron shouldn't really be having. Far better to focus on the £2 billion for social care being 'not enough' I think (As Lamb is doing)
Sheer arguing for the sake of it from most parties, particularly Labour and Lib Dems. This is a progressive policy that strikes people as being fair enough. They are too insecure to give the Tories any credit even when they agree.. horrible politics
UKIP seem to genuinely disagree with the policy, though there is probably a fair bit of needing to distinguish themselves from the Tories there as well
The swivel-eyed, cliff-edge Brexiteers on the Tory right clearly see this NIC thing as a means to attack Hammond, don't they?
I think there's division amongst the Leave community. On the one hand we have the orthodox Leavers: they've taken Theresa to their hearts as the Queen of Brexit and have been largely supportive of Hammond, even to the extent of branding the self-employed as feckless spongers who should shut up and pay their dues for once in their lives. But we also have the ultra-orthodox: they regard Hammond's early remarks about a softer Brexit as heresy; of course, this has damned him in their eyes but also made them suspicion of Theresa. They will only be relaxed about Theresa when she chooses one of their own as her chancellor. Ousting Hammond will force that decision upon her, so they can then make their assessment.
There was a comment from Labour after the by elections that said that they weren't getting their message across to the voters. Personally, I think the voters have already heard them loud and clear.
Excellent polling for Hammond there, must admit. Particularly good numbers amongst Lib Dem voters - I am left wondering if this is a fight Tim Farron shouldn't really be having. Far better to focus on the £2 billion for social care being 'not enough' I think (As Lamb is doing)
Sheer arguing for the sake of it from most parties, particularly Labour and Lib Dems. This is a progressive policy that strikes people as being fair enough. They are too insecure to give the Tories any credit even when they agree.. horrible politics
UKIP seem to genuinely disagree with the policy, though there is probably a fair bit of needing to distinguish themselves from the Tories there as well
Labour voters net against the policy, and UKIP voters in favour which is a bit odd though. I wonder how much of that net negative amongst Labour voters is due to the man, not the ball so to speak. If McDonnell proposed this as CoTE would they oppose ???????? Curious.
Excellent polling for Hammond there, must admit. Particularly good numbers amongst Lib Dem voters - I am left wondering if this is a fight Tim Farron shouldn't really be having. Far better to focus on the £2 billion for social care being 'not enough' I think (As Lamb is doing)
Sheer arguing for the sake of it from most parties, particularly Labour and Lib Dems. This is a progressive policy that strikes people as being fair enough. They are too insecure to give the Tories any credit even when they agree.. horrible politics
UKIP seem to genuinely disagree with the policy, though there is probably a fair bit of needing to distinguish themselves from the Tories there as well
Labour voters net against the policy, and UKIP voters in favour which is a bit odd though. I wonder how much of that net negative amongst Labour voters is due to the man, not the ball so to speak. If McDonnell proposed this as CoTE would they oppose ???????? Curious.
The Labour voters that are left seem to be more obsessed with hating Tories, and setting up left vs right arguments than being able to see anything for what it is or talk about anything else.
I know everyone likes a story about politicians breaking promises, but I really have been astounded how overblown some media commentators have been on this NI stuff - they are acting like It is unprecedented, that it is a breach of contract or the like. I'm all for making the Tories squirm for changing tack, if they hold firm on this, to explain it, not weasel out of facing up to breaking the promise, but it is pretty over the top when we all know parties break promises - the argument should be about why they are doing it (bad policy, changed situation) and if it is a good thing more than 'wah wah, we made a promise to the voters'.
I agree. The whole thing has been ridiculously overblown. But, as has been said on PB, it seems at least possible that the reason we have had such a fuss is that it hits a lot of freelancing journos and commentators.
What most people do not know is that a sizable portion of a self-employed person's income is not even declared to begin with. Everyone is not a lawyer or an accountant. Do you think all of the earnings of a self-employed restaurant owner or the corner shop actually gets declared ?
Over the years I had 2 solicitors who actively encouraged me to pay in cash, no invoice. Almost everyone's on the make. Instinctively I want to criticise Hammond, but he was probably right with this.
I think the Inland Revenue are well aware of this. Tax inspectors have been known to sit in a car outside a Chinese takeway counting the number of customers for a sufficient period. They then visit the owner and issue a tax bill.
However, I know a lot of honest businesses who always issue an invoice and are paid by cheque or bank credit. They're penalised by the assumption that everyone's dishonest because HMRC seems to make tax investigations at random and these can ruin the life of innocent people.
One reason I favour CGT on houses is that owners would have to keep the receipts for building maintenance (to reduce the chargeable capital gain) and builders would have to issue invoices. Makes evasion slightly harder.
Eh? 'The people', who I presume are the majority, need to accept Corbyn is saying something new on their behalf?
For their benefit, even if they don't see that, I can accept (if disagree with).
Well, maybe the rest of the article is less silly sounding, lets see.
Getting out and knocking on doors might compound the problem, if people hate the message.
Exactly what I thought. In fact it sounds like Seamus Milne drafted crap to me, as I get the impression that Labour MPs are coming back to Westminster every Monday and saying we went knocking on doors this weekend and "Corbyn is toxic" is the message we get on every doorstep.
Comments
Welcome aboard :>
As a general point, I totally agree. The public needs to be confronted more on the harsh realities of funding NHS/Social Care in an ageing population. We just can't carry on with the idea we can have Scandinavian levels of state support without actually paying for it.
And personally I would far rather companies were paying NI than employees.
Really, it needs to rolled into Income Tax because that is really what it is.
After a while I had had enough. I told him that the secretary who typed his accounts actually was paying more taxes than he was.
What most people do not know is that a sizable portion of a self-employed person's income is not even declared to begin with. Everyone is not a lawyer or an accountant. Do you think all of the earnings of a self-employed restaurant owner or the corner shop actually gets declared ?
Thanks very much
VVD got 41% last election, and I know they've fallen but undecided voters tend to cling to what they know ultimately if they vote at all.
ALTHOUGH, I think the condition is that people want to be sure that their extra taxes will go straight to "the front-line" of public services, rather than being "wasted" on administration staff, through incompetence, etc. Clearly, Miliband's Labour didn't meet that condition, and Corbyn's Labour is nowhere close. If people aren't sure that the country will reap the benefits of extra taxation, then they'll naturally ask why they should give more up in the first place.
'The term "former Yugoslavia" (bivša Jugoslavija) is now commonly used retrospectively.'
"Here's Bob. He's an employee. He earns £35k. As an employee, he receives holiday pay...."
They make it sound like his holiday pay is on top of his salary, which of course is total nonsense. It just means his income is less lumpy than someone who gets paid only for the days they work.
(I must confess, it is a lovely feeling when you are sitting on a beach, knowing that you are being paid, and your pay has just landed in your bank account that very morning.)
Just a coincidence I'm sure.
"No taxation without representation!"
As you know I would slash the size of the state dramatically if I had the chance. But as long as we have to have taxes then the burden should be shared equally and not targeted on individuals as opposed to companies.
The problem with your solution is that it makes no difference to me running a small business if that contractor is self-employed or a team of people. Lets say I hire an electrician to do a job and the electrician that comes is part of a team, his employer pays his employer's NI not me. If the one that comes is self-employed, why should I be responsible for his employer's NI?
'Kosovo has no official religion. The constitution establishes Kosovo as a secular state that is neutral in matters of religious beliefs and where everyone is equal before the law and freedom to belief, conscience and religion is guaranteed.
According to 2013–2015 Freedom of Thought reports by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, Kosovo ranked first in the Balkans and ninth in the world as "Free and equal" for tolerance towards religion and atheism.'
https://fullfact.org/economy/foreigners-working-uk/
His employer is also paying £3700 for the pleasure of employing him.
In addition Bob is paying £800 more than he would be if he was self employed on the same income.
He's also paying £2800 a year to receive a pension that is worth half of what the more senior employees in his firm get since the final salary scheme was closed.
Bob's a young graduate employee. Don't be like Bob, be old, self employed and definitely avoid having gone to Uni recently.
I agree though in a sense... Self employed generally speaking have it tougher.
Doesn't mean this NI rise is unfair though.
"Many seemed quite normal. They had families and looked like nice people, but the comments they were writing in a public space were so extreme. There was a disconnect.”
To me that is a very Guardianesque definition of "troll", who are mainly people with strong non-Liberal opinions and a habit of expressing them unnuanced:
1 - 50 year old man with blunt opinions about immigration and Muslims.
2 - 21 year old woman who spends her time having goes at female celebrities. Used to getting blowback. “But that doesn’t bother me,” she says. “I have a lot of sex so I can’t be that ugly.”
3 - 49 year old man who is an anti-Israel activist / conspiracy theorist / pro-gun activist. Interesting combination.
4 - 42-year old man who is a pro-gun activist / Trump supporter. “It’s the first time since 9/11 that I feel our country is back on track, back where it belongs.”
5 - 51 year old Russian woman. Student. "She wants to make it clear that she doesn’t see LGBT people as her enemy, but that they have “a defect.”"
6 - 42 year old Norwegian man. Dislikes Muslims and immigration, but changing opinions. After the arrival of a Muslim man at work. “He’s OK,” he says, “so my issues with immigration are going away. If I met my former self in a discussion forum now, I’d probably get into an argument with him.”
The author claims that he couldn't get "misogynists" to talk publicly. I would say that 2 qualifies by the current definition of misogynist.
An old style troll was an online version of ringing the doorbell and running away, or driving argments in circles. The new style troll abuses individuals.
This list is people with whom the author strongly agrees who won't keep quiet ie we have an attempt at marginalisation.
A while back I hired an electrician to do a job. He gave me a VAT invoice for his company which I duly paid, job done. On the day he came with two colleagues. Presumably he's paid employers NI for his colleagues, but is self-employed himself. I have no knowledge on his business model or overheads. I have no clue how much income he made himself for the job and no right or ability to know that either. How am I supposed to pay employer's NI for him without knowing how much income he made?.
Wiki also includes the actual numbers from the 2011 Census:
Community / Numbers / Percentage
"Islam / 1,663,202 / 95.60
Christians / 64,275 / 3.69
Other / 1,188 / 0.06
None / 1,842 / 0.10
Not stated / 10,023 / 0.55%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Kosovo
Of course, that tells us *nothing* about the attack until the details of the man and his motivation are explained.
Albania is perhaps the best comparison as to the character of the country.
https://twitter.com/c_barraud/status/840155160793890816
The truth is that these self-appointed "guardians of the absolute truths" are simply human beings with opinions, agendas and a need to pay their bills. Just like the rest of us.
And yet Facebook and others are touting their use as being the Next Big Thing on social media news posts.
Net good idea:
Con: +33
Lab: -14
LibD: +12
UKIP: +16
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/awslf1ptrl/TimesResults_170309_VI_Budget_W.pdf
Con: 19
Lab: 25
LibD: 3
UKIP: 3
SNP: 48
What most people do not know is that a sizable portion of a self-employed person's income is not even declared to begin with. Everyone is not a lawyer or an accountant. Do you think all of the earnings of a self-employed restaurant owner or the corner shop actually gets declared ?
Over the years I had 2 solicitors who actively encouraged me to pay in cash, no invoice. Almost everyone's on the make. Instinctively I want to criticise Hammond, but he was probably right with this.
But the key thing is you can't compare the figures like that.
http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence/letter-from-sir-andrew-dilnot-to-jonathan-portes-18082014.pdf
May make it clearer.
In particular read bullets i and ii
Everybody in my work is saying 'about time'... we have 'employees' employed - with full sick cover and 26 annual holidays - working as 'contractors'. It's purely a ruse to save NI contributions. My mate in work pays over half as much income tax as me. We do the same job.
Particularly good numbers amongst Lib Dem voters - I am left wondering if this is a fight Tim Farron shouldn't really be having. Far better to focus on the £2 billion for social care being 'not enough' I think (As Lamb is doing)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-09/russias-largest-bank-confirms-hiring-podesta-group-lobby-ending-sanctions
The fact remains though that the self-employed have insurances they have to pay (e.g. my PI) and premiums they should pay and can't afford to (critical illness insurance) so they could do with more liberal rules on expenses and averaging net income between tax years. The rules don't allow this except for farmers.
It's time I think for pensioners to pay NI or whatever it's called if it becomes a compulsory insurance payment to cover you if you become ill, old or disabled... Social Security Contributions? As before, not payable on under ~£11k.
My wife is in a similar situation, born and bred in South Africa but her father is from Edinburgh and she is dual nationality British/South African. She moved here as a British citizen then looked for work. Also appears in your stats. Considering citizenship is available to anyone born overseas with parents or grandparents who are British these are not untypical cases or a tiny number.
UKIP seem to genuinely disagree with the policy, though there is probably a fair bit of needing to distinguish themselves from the Tories there as well
"It may take many years for people to accept that Jeremy wants to say something different on behalf of the majority.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/kate-osamor-interview-labour-has-neglected-its-heartlands-there-are-no-safe-seats-anymore_uk_58bf1d1ae4b054a0ea65b100?9od2t9&utm_hp_ref=uk
Macron up 1 point to 26, now level with Le Pen. His highest rating yet in this poll.
Fillon down 1 point to 20
Macron now shows a 30 point lead over Le Pen in second round.
http://presicote.factoviz.com/index/more/id/qoo_lew_1
Curious.
Osborne: -10
Hammond: +8
For their benefit, even if they don't see that, I can accept (if disagree with).
Well, maybe the rest of the article is less silly sounding, lets see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svv0H9F-jgk
They also still seem to have some brake issues.
Pace is better, though. Or seems to be.
Hammond should have made them an exemption.
I think the Inland Revenue are well aware of this. Tax inspectors have been known to sit in a car outside a Chinese takeway counting the number of customers for a sufficient period. They then visit the owner and issue a tax bill.
However, I know a lot of honest businesses who always issue an invoice and are paid by cheque or bank credit. They're penalised by the assumption that everyone's dishonest because HMRC seems to make tax investigations at random and these can ruin the life of innocent people.
One reason I favour CGT on houses is that owners would have to keep the receipts for building maintenance (to reduce the chargeable capital gain) and builders would have to issue invoices. Makes evasion slightly harder.