FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Lawyer on furlough
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"A lawyer with no savings is clearly not a very good lawyer." What a silly thing to state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"A lawyer with no savings is clearly not a very good lawyer. What a silly thing to state." How so? Performance dictates their pay generally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I totally agree with this is what you get when you play the system, it's very naive for her to go public with this Accountants do advise you to work this way " Maybe the people that use these accountants should find a better one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Lawyers are good at what they do and are very intelligent? But, they’ve got very little common sense. I’m self employed and I’ve always planned for worst case scenarios, which this is one. Me and my partner are living well and have so much sex it’s lovely. X" I find that with a lot of highly educated - low savings and high amounts of debt. We’ve always worked on keeping enough liquidity for 6 months of bills / costs if no revenue came in. We also always live on 80% if income and save 10%, this is quite a common principle a lot of people I know follow and is taught on money courses, I did wonder if it’s where the gov got the 80% figure for furlough from | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.." How do you work the £2600 figure ? If a person takes a salary of just £75k , you would lose child benefit and get only min. support for you kids uni costs that alone is £12k a year loss as the Self employed don’t declare dividends on these two means tested things | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"So on Radio 2 yesterday there was a lawyer whining she was on 80% of minimum wage and struggling to cope. Transpired as she was self employed she paid herself the legal minimum wage ( and hence very little tax I assume) and dividends as part of her income. I’m no tax expert but this seems to be a legal means of avoiding paying more tax as opposed to those on PAYE. My point is, ( and I tried ringing in to say it ) if you use the system to pay less tax, don’t cry if the system doesn’t treat you the same as those who pay 40/50% tax on those on PAYE. It was disgusting to hear the lawyer whining when there are brave NHS staff, from doctors to cleaners going into work, risking their life to save others. " Every cloud as they say, legalised criminals most of them! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"So on Radio 2 yesterday there was a lawyer whining she was on 80% of minimum wage and struggling to cope. Transpired as she was self employed she paid herself the legal minimum wage ( and hence very little tax I assume) and dividends as part of her income. I’m no tax expert but this seems to be a legal means of avoiding paying more tax as opposed to those on PAYE. My point is, ( and I tried ringing in to say it ) if you use the system to pay less tax, don’t cry if the system doesn’t treat you the same as those who pay 40/50% tax on those on PAYE. It was disgusting to hear the lawyer whining when there are brave NHS staff, from doctors to cleaners going into work, risking their life to save others. Every cloud as they say, legalised criminals most of them!" When you consider that the majority of construction workers in the UK are self employed, same as many taxi and delivery drivers..its not just the big high end earners who are self.employed or small business owners but also 1000s of ordinary workers as the industries cant guarantee continuity of work especially construction... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not just lawyers, most self employed do similar. When you factor in the corporation tax, VAT, tax on dividends, lack of pension, healthcare, sick pay and holiday , plus the risks of finding enough work to get paid every month, it’s often not much different to PAYE" Thatcher's Britain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"omg People still gloating about self employed people and the divi scheme... yes we do fucking pay tax... lots of it... and pay accountant to sort it. We are not all tax dodgers and many now have no work! Hairdressers designers engineers....all stuffed. If you don’t actually understand what your saying don’t put stupid posts up." There’s no gloating. If you pick the bones out of my thread my grouch was her whining. And it was Olympic Gold medal standard whining. Tbf anyone can play the system and have it good, I just don’t want to hear the crying when it goes the other way and someone wanting the same benefits as those who pay their tax a different way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"omg People still gloating about self employed people and the divi scheme... yes we do fucking pay tax... lots of it... and pay accountant to sort it. We are not all tax dodgers and many now have no work! Hairdressers designers engineers....all stuffed. If you don’t actually understand what your saying don’t put stupid posts up. There’s no gloating. If you pick the bones out of my thread my grouch was her whining. And it was Olympic Gold medal standard whining. Tbf anyone can play the system and have it good, I just don’t want to hear the crying when it goes the other way and someone wanting the same benefits as those who pay their tax a different way. " I got your meaning. I liked your post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not just lawyers, most self employed do similar. When you factor in the corporation tax, VAT, tax on dividends, lack of pension, healthcare, sick pay and holiday , plus the risks of finding enough work to get paid every month, it’s often not much different to PAYE Thatcher's Britain" She’s been dead 7 years and finished in power 30! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"This exact thing has caught out virtually every self employed person and people who employ themselves through their own company " Sadly a lot is also down to people just living for the day. If they do not have the sense to put a little aside then we are now seeing the result. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"So on Radio 2 yesterday there was a lawyer whining she was on 80% of minimum wage and struggling to cope. Transpired as she was self employed she paid herself the legal minimum wage ( and hence very little tax I assume) and dividends as part of her income. I’m no tax expert but this seems to be a legal means of avoiding paying more tax as opposed to those on PAYE. My point is, ( and I tried ringing in to say it ) if you use the system to pay less tax, don’t cry if the system doesn’t treat you the same as those who pay 40/50% tax on those on PAYE. It was disgusting to hear the lawyer whining when there are brave NHS staff, from doctors to cleaners going into work, risking their life to save others. " Typical lawyer lying twisting evil scum | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Where hubby works some of his staff choose PAYE others choose to go the Ltd company route The ones that do Ltd company pay themselves min wage and take rest in dividends. They actively and regularly boast how they take home more money because they can get away with paying less tax. I know many are up front about honest self employed people but also those that choose this route not because they have to but because by their own admittance it meant they pay less tax" Yes, but they also have to fund their own pensions and have no holiday pay, sick pay and minimal employment rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Where hubby works some of his staff choose PAYE others choose to go the Ltd company route The ones that do Ltd company pay themselves min wage and take rest in dividends. They actively and regularly boast how they take home more money because they can get away with paying less tax. I know many are up front about honest self employed people but also those that choose this route not because they have to but because by their own admittance it meant they pay less tax Yes, but they also have to fund their own pensions and have no holiday pay, sick pay and minimal employment rights." I should have also mentioned those that went down the Ltd company route also have a much higher hourly rate. I am told this is because of holidays ect. As I say many are up front honest people but also many were actively boasting to their PAYE colleagues how much better of they are doing the same job but paying less tax | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"A lawyer with no savings is clearly not a very good lawyer. What a silly thing to state. How so? Performance dictates their pay generally." It means they live to their means rather than save. It has nothing to do with their abilities as a lawyer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Where hubby works some of his staff choose PAYE others choose to go the Ltd company route The ones that do Ltd company pay themselves min wage and take rest in dividends. They actively and regularly boast how they take home more money because they can get away with paying less tax. I know many are up front about honest self employed people but also those that choose this route not because they have to but because by their own admittance it meant they pay less tax Yes, but they also have to fund their own pensions and have no holiday pay, sick pay and minimal employment rights. I should have also mentioned those that went down the Ltd company route also have a much higher hourly rate. I am told this is because of holidays ect. As I say many are up front honest people but also many were actively boasting to their PAYE colleagues how much better of they are doing the same job but paying less tax" Had this with a close friend in the same line of work as me. He is not bragging now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I totally agree with this is what you get when you play the system, it's very naive for her to go public with this Accountants do advise you to work this way Maybe the people that use these accountants should find a better one. " Let's face it. I don't think Accountants factored in a pandemic, but........ maybe they should have. I mean at end of day a lot of people bluster that the government should have been ready. Accountants are supposed to be intelligent people so why weren't they ready. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I totally agree with this is what you get when you play the system, it's very naive for her to go public with this Accountants do advise you to work this way Maybe the people that use these accountants should find a better one. Let's face it. I don't think Accountants factored in a pandemic, but........ maybe they should have. I mean at end of day a lot of people bluster that the government should have been ready. Accountants are supposed to be intelligent people so why weren't they ready." Maybe they could sue their accountant for bad advice and planning. Good luck there with that one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"A lawyer with no savings is clearly not a very good lawyer. What a silly thing to state. How so? Performance dictates their pay generally. It means they live to their means rather than save. It has nothing to do with their abilities as a lawyer. " I bet there will be some bargains on the high performance car lots if you can afford the cash. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Where hubby works some of his staff choose PAYE others choose to go the Ltd company route The ones that do Ltd company pay themselves min wage and take rest in dividends. They actively and regularly boast how they take home more money because they can get away with paying less tax. I know many are up front about honest self employed people but also those that choose this route not because they have to but because by their own admittance it meant they pay less tax Yes, but they also have to fund their own pensions and have no holiday pay, sick pay and minimal employment rights. I should have also mentioned those that went down the Ltd company route also have a much higher hourly rate. I am told this is because of holidays ect. As I say many are up front honest people but also many were actively boasting to their PAYE colleagues how much better of they are doing the same job but paying less tax Had this with a close friend in the same line of work as me. He is not bragging now." Will be interesting if they revert back to PAYE when things return Maybe the chancellor had this in his mind when setting the rules | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I totally agree with this is what you get when you play the system, it's very naive for her to go public with this Accountants do advise you to work this way Maybe the people that use these accountants should find a better one. Let's face it. I don't think Accountants factored in a pandemic, but........ maybe they should have. I mean at end of day a lot of people bluster that the government should have been ready. Accountants are supposed to be intelligent people so why weren't they ready." Accountants should always be ready and factor everything in. Even if it wasn’t this virus pandemic, some other natural disaster could have affected businesses, disasters like an earthquake, flood, tsunami, hurricane etc. All of these would have affected businesses and the self employed in a similar way as this pandemic. So everything needs to be factored in. But I also think that some of the self employed and business owners should also learn lessons from his and not just depend entirely on advice from their accountants. I say ‘some’ because I’m aware that there are already many self employed out there (like myself) who have always made & had contingency plans in place to handle situations like this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"A lawyer with no savings is clearly not a very good lawyer. What a silly thing to state. How so? Performance dictates their pay generally. It means they live to their means rather than save. It has nothing to do with their abilities as a lawyer. " I wouldn’t want to put my liberty or financial future in the hands of a lawyer without the foresight to be able to survive on 80% of their wages for 6 weeks, would you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"A lawyer with no savings is clearly not a very good lawyer. What a silly thing to state. How so? Performance dictates their pay generally. It means they live to their means rather than save. It has nothing to do with their abilities as a lawyer. I wouldn’t want to put my liberty or financial future in the hands of a lawyer without the foresight to be able to survive on 80% of their wages for 6 weeks, would you?" But it's not 80% of their income. Not that I care cos I don't care what income you have, everyone should factor in a "rainy day". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"A lawyer with no savings is clearly not a very good lawyer. What a silly thing to state. How so? Performance dictates their pay generally. It means they live to their means rather than save. It has nothing to do with their abilities as a lawyer. I wouldn’t want to put my liberty or financial future in the hands of a lawyer without the foresight to be able to survive on 80% of their wages for 6 weeks, would you? But it's not 80% of their income. Not that I care cos I don't care what income you have, everyone should factor in a "rainy day". " Agree, not that I have one, I just like complaining | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"A lawyer with no savings is clearly not a very good lawyer. What a silly thing to state. How so? Performance dictates their pay generally. It means they live to their means rather than save. It has nothing to do with their abilities as a lawyer. I wouldn’t want to put my liberty or financial future in the hands of a lawyer without the foresight to be able to survive on 80% of their wages for 6 weeks, would you? But it's not 80% of their income. Not that I care cos I don't care what income you have, everyone should factor in a "rainy day". Agree, not that I have one, I just like complaining " My rainy day has lasted 17 months. 6 weeks my arse. Ha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It pays off if you prefer a decent country that isn't starved of tax, to be able to provide appropriate services that are above the absolute minimum needed. We all have responsibilities and offloading them is morally bankrupt. " If I was a government minister I would be telling them to kiss my arse if they want more money. I think that is really what they are doing. I just hope they have the strength of to be strong and tell people like the lawyer on the radio, best thing you can do is do a Tebbit, and get on your bike. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not just lawyers, most self employed do similar. When you factor in the corporation tax, VAT, tax on dividends, lack of pension, healthcare, sick pay and holiday , plus the risks of finding enough work to get paid every month, it’s often not much different to PAYE" in which case why bother ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"People will always moan, wait a few months when there is no more support. I've not paid myself in months, and I've completely fallen through the net. But I'm doing what little crumbs of work come my way until my clients re-open (crossing fingers). Things are ok at the moment, the sun is out and its an extended, if not planned holiday, but not the same if it were winter and had been going for 12 months. We need to start learning about the Great Depression, the lessons we can learn nationally and personally to get us through. " I mentioned FDR fairly recently. Awesome way out of the depression and not providing people with money for nothing but for work. Not just any work, but work to benefit the region/country. Soooooo, let's build a Hoover Dam | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It’s not just lawyers, most self employed do similar. When you factor in the corporation tax, VAT, tax on dividends, lack of pension, healthcare, sick pay and holiday , plus the risks of finding enough work to get paid every month, it’s often not much different to PAYEin which case why bother ?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.." While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"So on Radio 2 yesterday there was a lawyer whining she was on 80% of minimum wage and struggling to cope. Transpired as she was self employed she paid herself the legal minimum wage ( and hence very little tax I assume) and dividends as part of her income. I’m no tax expert but this seems to be a legal means of avoiding paying more tax as opposed to those on PAYE. My point is, ( and I tried ringing in to say it ) if you use the system to pay less tax, don’t cry if the system doesn’t treat you the same as those who pay 40/50% tax on those on PAYE. It was disgusting to hear the lawyer whining when there are brave NHS staff, from doctors to cleaners going into work, risking their life to save others. " That's a good idea OP. Let those who pay no tax have no benefit from taxes. Perhaps those who don't pay taxes should not be allowed to attend schools, use roads, be represented by government.....etc etc? Do you pay more tax than you have to? Do you voluntarily pay more tax than the HMRC demands of you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for " The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion." I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Also nobody ever said risk only comes from market force , if you thought market force was your only risk in setting up a business i would suggest that was very naive Circumstances could change for a self employed person at any time meaning they couldn't work, you or your partner could have become critically ill and hospitalised needing long term care ... but i guess in that situation the government wouldnt give you a bigger payout for that if you paid more in so why would you bother , hindsight is a wonderful thing " Well you can insure yourself against catastrophic loss of income. However the insurance companies are wriggling out of it by saying that force majeur does not apply here as it is government that has shut the market down. And so the circle goes on. Ultimately we are all expecting the government to bail us out. Utlimately this will have to be paid for in higher taxes and borrowing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good " Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Also nobody ever said risk only comes from market force , if you thought market force was your only risk in setting up a business i would suggest that was very naive Circumstances could change for a self employed person at any time meaning they couldn't work, you or your partner could have become critically ill and hospitalised needing long term care ... but i guess in that situation the government wouldnt give you a bigger payout for that if you paid more in so why would you bother , hindsight is a wonderful thing Well you can insure yourself against catastrophic loss of income. However the insurance companies are wriggling out of it by saying that force majeur does not apply here as it is government that has shut the market down. And so the circle goes on. Ultimately we are all expecting the government to bail us out. Utlimately this will have to be paid for in higher taxes and borrowing." And therein lies the point, these people taking dividends instead of salary are looking for the same level of bailout when they were using a loophole to avoid the same level of paying in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum?" Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle " I'm a lawyer. If you're instructing lawyers that charge £400 a hour, you're instructing someone pretty much at the top of the tree. Such lawyers are likely to be very wealthy and can therefore easily absorb the extra tax they have to pay without passing it on the clients and those that do inflate their fees by 50% will, of course, lose business to those who don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I think they actually were moving contractors onto PAYE via law to some extent, at least within large companies - be interesting to see if that goes ahead post lockdown." That has already started, I think it's to do with the level of supervision and the amount of instruction required in your job role. This was due to be extended to cover more job roles this year but due to Covid it has been suspended. Switching people from Ltd Company to PAYE can have an extremely detrimental and unfair effect to certain people (mainly those who need to travel and provide some of their own equipment). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle " Exactly!!! If that lawyer chose a more expensive tax structure, that lawyer wouldn't be able to compete with those who used the most efficient structure. Market forces leave competing entities no choice but to be as efficient as possible. This is the beauty of capitalism and why it works. So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. In his book Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert T Kiyosaki says there is no greater crime than to pay the taxman one dime more than you need to. Jesus said give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Nobody. Not EVEN the taxman expects you to choose the least efficient tax structure. The entire profession of accountancy is dedicated to this principle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I think they actually were moving contractors onto PAYE via law to some extent, at least within large companies - be interesting to see if that goes ahead post lockdown. That has already started, I think it's to do with the level of supervision and the amount of instruction required in your job role. This was due to be extended to cover more job roles this year but due to Covid it has been suspended. Switching people from Ltd Company to PAYE can have an extremely detrimental and unfair effect to certain people (mainly those who need to travel and provide some of their own equipment). " No really, if the employer doesnt provide expenses for them then you can call up hmrc and have the cost added to your tax allowance as deductible costs, thee act same way as you would make them deductible costs in your ltd company | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I think they actually were moving contractors onto PAYE via law to some extent, at least within large companies - be interesting to see if that goes ahead post lockdown. That has already started, I think it's to do with the level of supervision and the amount of instruction required in your job role. This was due to be extended to cover more job roles this year but due to Covid it has been suspended. Switching people from Ltd Company to PAYE can have an extremely detrimental and unfair effect to certain people (mainly those who need to travel and provide some of their own equipment). No really, if the employer doesnt provide expenses for them then you can call up hmrc and have the cost added to your tax allowance as deductible costs, thee act same way as you would make them deductible costs in your ltd company " Even for fuel? I thought under PAYE it's the employers responsibility to pay travel costs which is problematic since most guys on PAYE are "employed" via Umbrella companies? I know someone who works in the rail industry and his contractors are really concerned when the switch happens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle Exactly!!! If that lawyer chose a more expensive tax structure, that lawyer wouldn't be able to compete with those who used the most efficient structure. Market forces leave competing entities no choice but to be as efficient as possible. This is the beauty of capitalism and why it works. So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. In his book Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert T Kiyosaki says there is no greater crime than to pay the taxman one dime more than you need to. Jesus said give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Nobody. Not EVEN the taxman expects you to choose the least efficient tax structure. The entire profession of accountancy is dedicated to this principle. " 1. An actual lawyer who has a better idea of their costs than our wild plucked out air numbers has already debunked your theory 2 So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. Could your exact point not be quoted back to self employed now looking for this handout? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I think they actually were moving contractors onto PAYE via law to some extent, at least within large companies - be interesting to see if that goes ahead post lockdown. That has already started, I think it's to do with the level of supervision and the amount of instruction required in your job role. This was due to be extended to cover more job roles this year but due to Covid it has been suspended. Switching people from Ltd Company to PAYE can have an extremely detrimental and unfair effect to certain people (mainly those who need to travel and provide some of their own equipment). " Blanket application of IR35 to those who fall outside IR35 it technically illegal and not what IR35 was intended for. The House of Lords tore IR35 to shreds finding 29 flaws in its operation. It was found to be grossly unfair. After this daming review the government says who gives a hoot if it's wrong we will do it anyway. Democracy - two lions and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I think they actually were moving contractors onto PAYE via law to some extent, at least within large companies - be interesting to see if that goes ahead post lockdown. That has already started, I think it's to do with the level of supervision and the amount of instruction required in your job role. This was due to be extended to cover more job roles this year but due to Covid it has been suspended. Switching people from Ltd Company to PAYE can have an extremely detrimental and unfair effect to certain people (mainly those who need to travel and provide some of their own equipment). No really, if the employer doesnt provide expenses for them then you can call up hmrc and have the cost added to your tax allowance as deductible costs, thee act same way as you would make them deductible costs in your ltd company Even for fuel? I thought under PAYE it's the employers responsibility to pay travel costs which is problematic since most guys on PAYE are "employed" via Umbrella companies? I know someone who works in the rail industry and his contractors are really concerned when the switch happens." Not sure what the current value is but it is usually pence per mile from your base location (ie where you are deemed to work not your home so commuting not included) Anything that an employer would be allowed to compensate you for and would be tax deductible for the company , if you are not compensated then you can submit to hmrc and have your tax code adjusted for the tax portion if the expense ... you are still out of pocket for the cost, but save the tax on it wether you are employed or self employed It has to be an expense that is required for you to do your job , so for example my work dont pay my annual professional registration fees, but because i work in my profession I can have that expense added to my tax code, if i worked in another field i could not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle Exactly!!! If that lawyer chose a more expensive tax structure, that lawyer wouldn't be able to compete with those who used the most efficient structure. Market forces leave competing entities no choice but to be as efficient as possible. This is the beauty of capitalism and why it works. So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. In his book Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert T Kiyosaki says there is no greater crime than to pay the taxman one dime more than you need to. Jesus said give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Nobody. Not EVEN the taxman expects you to choose the least efficient tax structure. The entire profession of accountancy is dedicated to this principle. " Also i am a chartered accountant, and accountants that are just out to save you tax money are actually a very small portion of our profession | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle Exactly!!! If that lawyer chose a more expensive tax structure, that lawyer wouldn't be able to compete with those who used the most efficient structure. Market forces leave competing entities no choice but to be as efficient as possible. This is the beauty of capitalism and why it works. So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. In his book Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert T Kiyosaki says there is no greater crime than to pay the taxman one dime more than you need to. Jesus said give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Nobody. Not EVEN the taxman expects you to choose the least efficient tax structure. The entire profession of accountancy is dedicated to this principle. 1. An actual lawyer who has a better idea of their costs than our wild plucked out air numbers has already debunked your theory 2 So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. Could your exact point not be quoted back to self employed now looking for this handout? " Indeed. If you've chosen to be a wheeling dealing free marketing standing on your own two feet type and begrudging anything you pay it tax, it doesn't look good if then complain when disaster strikes and you expect the state to bail you out. There's a lot of that around, people who are fervent capitalists in the good times and expect to get the benefits of socialism in the bad times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Not read the whole thread but many are confused between page and self employed. The lawyer in question is an employee of her own company presumably as are many other so called professionals, they take low wages and pay tax and ni via paye system and take the rest as dividends which are taxed at a lower rate. Self employed people pay tax via self assessment and at the same rate as employed people, they dont get dividends " It even more complex than that, lawyers will often be part of a partnership, if not with limited liability then they face many if not all of the same risks and rules as the self employed A limited company with a sole director/ employee taking a small salary and dividends is actually a 3rd bracket where they are subject to both self assessment and paye and they play the system to make this balance as efficient as they can , a number of people in this scenario actually contract for big firms and all but on paper are effectively employees but their setup was saving both the big firm and the director money in terms of national insurance contributions (as well as tax on dividends) its specifically why the tax rules were changed particularly on dividends just a few years ago to try close the gap | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle Exactly!!! If that lawyer chose a more expensive tax structure, that lawyer wouldn't be able to compete with those who used the most efficient structure. Market forces leave competing entities no choice but to be as efficient as possible. This is the beauty of capitalism and why it works. So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. In his book Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert T Kiyosaki says there is no greater crime than to pay the taxman one dime more than you need to. Jesus said give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Nobody. Not EVEN the taxman expects you to choose the least efficient tax structure. The entire profession of accountancy is dedicated to this principle. 1. An actual lawyer who has a better idea of their costs than our wild plucked out air numbers has already debunked your theory 2 So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. Could your exact point not be quoted back to self employed now looking for this handout? " Again. These people are not asking for a handout because they took a risk on the market and lost. These people are asking to be compensated for the fact they are not able to conduct their business because the GOVERNMENT is asking them not to do so. Does that sound like the free market to you? As for debunking. You debunked yourself by indicating that if a lawyer priced herself out of the market by choosing a less efficient tax structure you would go elsewhere. If Sainsbury's chose a less efficient tax structure and had to rise their prices significantly they would be out of business tomorrow. Nobody would be buying from them because they contributed more to government coffers. Take a look at Amazon, we all bitch about them not paying taxes but they are shutting down high street businesses daily. Why? Because they are cheaper. Why? Because they don't have the same overheads. Instead of worrying about the little guy making a buck or two more, why is no one worrying about big corporations who are getting bailed out while they are profiting? It seems that to make billions dishonestly is acceptable but to make 10k more honestly is a sin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle Exactly!!! If that lawyer chose a more expensive tax structure, that lawyer wouldn't be able to compete with those who used the most efficient structure. Market forces leave competing entities no choice but to be as efficient as possible. This is the beauty of capitalism and why it works. So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. In his book Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert T Kiyosaki says there is no greater crime than to pay the taxman one dime more than you need to. Jesus said give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Nobody. Not EVEN the taxman expects you to choose the least efficient tax structure. The entire profession of accountancy is dedicated to this principle. 1. An actual lawyer who has a better idea of their costs than our wild plucked out air numbers has already debunked your theory 2 So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. Could your exact point not be quoted back to self employed now looking for this handout? Again. These people are not asking for a handout because they took a risk on the market and lost. These people are asking to be compensated for the fact they are not able to conduct their business because the GOVERNMENT is asking them not to do so. Does that sound like the free market to you? As for debunking. You debunked yourself by indicating that if a lawyer priced herself out of the market by choosing a less efficient tax structure you would go elsewhere. If Sainsbury's chose a less efficient tax structure and had to rise their prices significantly they would be out of business tomorrow. Nobody would be buying from them because they contributed more to government coffers. Take a look at Amazon, we all bitch about them not paying taxes but they are shutting down high street businesses daily. Why? Because they are cheaper. Why? Because they don't have the same overheads. Instead of worrying about the little guy making a buck or two more, why is no one worrying about big corporations who are getting bailed out while they are profiting? It seems that to make billions dishonestly is acceptable but to make 10k more honestly is a sin. " The government has not just stopped people working on a whim. Worldwide, work has ground to a halt because of a pandemic. In other words what has happened is a classic act of God. You are effectively saying that governments have a responsibility to bail people out when unforseen disaster arises. Good old fashioned socialism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I think they actually were moving contractors onto PAYE via law to some extent, at least within large companies - be interesting to see if that goes ahead post lockdown. That has already started, I think it's to do with the level of supervision and the amount of instruction required in your job role. This was due to be extended to cover more job roles this year but due to Covid it has been suspended. Switching people from Ltd Company to PAYE can have an extremely detrimental and unfair effect to certain people (mainly those who need to travel and provide some of their own equipment). No really, if the employer doesnt provide expenses for them then you can call up hmrc and have the cost added to your tax allowance as deductible costs, thee act same way as you would make them deductible costs in your ltd company Even for fuel? I thought under PAYE it's the employers responsibility to pay travel costs which is problematic since most guys on PAYE are "employed" via Umbrella companies? I know someone who works in the rail industry and his contractors are really concerned when the switch happens. Not sure what the current value is but it is usually pence per mile from your base location (ie where you are deemed to work not your home so commuting not included) Anything that an employer would be allowed to compensate you for and would be tax deductible for the company , if you are not compensated then you can submit to hmrc and have your tax code adjusted for the tax portion if the expense ... you are still out of pocket for the cost, but save the tax on it wether you are employed or self employed It has to be an expense that is required for you to do your job , so for example my work dont pay my annual professional registration fees, but because i work in my profession I can have that expense added to my tax code, if i worked in another field i could not " It's determined by engine size, most people can claim 45p per mile which covers the cost of fuel and vehicle maintainence. It would be interesting to see how this would apply to those who do not have a fixed location of work (construction and rail workers for example). Would the base location be the site itself (in which case transport expenses are null and void). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle Exactly!!! If that lawyer chose a more expensive tax structure, that lawyer wouldn't be able to compete with those who used the most efficient structure. Market forces leave competing entities no choice but to be as efficient as possible. This is the beauty of capitalism and why it works. So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. In his book Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert T Kiyosaki says there is no greater crime than to pay the taxman one dime more than you need to. Jesus said give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Nobody. Not EVEN the taxman expects you to choose the least efficient tax structure. The entire profession of accountancy is dedicated to this principle. 1. An actual lawyer who has a better idea of their costs than our wild plucked out air numbers has already debunked your theory 2 So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. Could your exact point not be quoted back to self employed now looking for this handout? Again. These people are not asking for a handout because they took a risk on the market and lost. These people are asking to be compensated for the fact they are not able to conduct their business because the GOVERNMENT is asking them not to do so. Does that sound like the free market to you? As for debunking. You debunked yourself by indicating that if a lawyer priced herself out of the market by choosing a less efficient tax structure you would go elsewhere. If Sainsbury's chose a less efficient tax structure and had to rise their prices significantly they would be out of business tomorrow. Nobody would be buying from them because they contributed more to government coffers. Take a look at Amazon, we all bitch about them not paying taxes but they are shutting down high street businesses daily. Why? Because they are cheaper. Why? Because they don't have the same overheads. Instead of worrying about the little guy making a buck or two more, why is no one worrying about big corporations who are getting bailed out while they are profiting? It seems that to make billions dishonestly is acceptable but to make 10k more honestly is a sin. The government has not just stopped people working on a whim. Worldwide, work has ground to a halt because of a pandemic. In other words what has happened is a classic act of God. You are effectively saying that governments have a responsibility to bail people out when unforseen disaster arises. Good old fashioned socialism. " The pandemic is an act of God. The disasterous effect of this pandemic is the act of an incompetent government and voters who think he's God. There are other countries who took early measures whose economies are doing quite nicely. But Boris wants our lawyer to stay at home and go bankrupt because HE shat the bed. How would you then describe the crash of 2008? Another act of God? Why were poor Britons taxed to bail out rich banks? There's your socialism in action a Robin Hood who steals from the needy and gives to the rich. Socialism yes, but reverse socialism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I think they actually were moving contractors onto PAYE via law to some extent, at least within large companies - be interesting to see if that goes ahead post lockdown. That has already started, I think it's to do with the level of supervision and the amount of instruction required in your job role. This was due to be extended to cover more job roles this year but due to Covid it has been suspended. Switching people from Ltd Company to PAYE can have an extremely detrimental and unfair effect to certain people (mainly those who need to travel and provide some of their own equipment). No really, if the employer doesnt provide expenses for them then you can call up hmrc and have the cost added to your tax allowance as deductible costs, thee act same way as you would make them deductible costs in your ltd company Even for fuel? I thought under PAYE it's the employers responsibility to pay travel costs which is problematic since most guys on PAYE are "employed" via Umbrella companies? I know someone who works in the rail industry and his contractors are really concerned when the switch happens. Not sure what the current value is but it is usually pence per mile from your base location (ie where you are deemed to work not your home so commuting not included) Anything that an employer would be allowed to compensate you for and would be tax deductible for the company , if you are not compensated then you can submit to hmrc and have your tax code adjusted for the tax portion if the expense ... you are still out of pocket for the cost, but save the tax on it wether you are employed or self employed It has to be an expense that is required for you to do your job , so for example my work dont pay my annual professional registration fees, but because i work in my profession I can have that expense added to my tax code, if i worked in another field i could not It's determined by engine size, most people can claim 45p per mile which covers the cost of fuel and vehicle maintainence. It would be interesting to see how this would apply to those who do not have a fixed location of work (construction and rail workers for example). Would the base location be the site itself (in which case transport expenses are null and void)." Its been a long time since i read the tax rules in detail and they change all the time, in this instance it might be that your home is your base location and you don’t have an excluded commute portion, a tax advisor, which i imagine the majority of these contractors already have would know the specifics | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle Exactly!!! If that lawyer chose a more expensive tax structure, that lawyer wouldn't be able to compete with those who used the most efficient structure. Market forces leave competing entities no choice but to be as efficient as possible. This is the beauty of capitalism and why it works. So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. In his book Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert T Kiyosaki says there is no greater crime than to pay the taxman one dime more than you need to. Jesus said give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Nobody. Not EVEN the taxman expects you to choose the least efficient tax structure. The entire profession of accountancy is dedicated to this principle. 1. An actual lawyer who has a better idea of their costs than our wild plucked out air numbers has already debunked your theory 2 So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. Could your exact point not be quoted back to self employed now looking for this handout? Again. These people are not asking for a handout because they took a risk on the market and lost. These people are asking to be compensated for the fact they are not able to conduct their business because the GOVERNMENT is asking them not to do so. Does that sound like the free market to you? As for debunking. You debunked yourself by indicating that if a lawyer priced herself out of the market by choosing a less efficient tax structure you would go elsewhere. If Sainsbury's chose a less efficient tax structure and had to rise their prices significantly they would be out of business tomorrow. Nobody would be buying from them because they contributed more to government coffers. Take a look at Amazon, we all bitch about them not paying taxes but they are shutting down high street businesses daily. Why? Because they are cheaper. Why? Because they don't have the same overheads. Instead of worrying about the little guy making a buck or two more, why is no one worrying about big corporations who are getting bailed out while they are profiting? It seems that to make billions dishonestly is acceptable but to make 10k more honestly is a sin. The government has not just stopped people working on a whim. Worldwide, work has ground to a halt because of a pandemic. In other words what has happened is a classic act of God. You are effectively saying that governments have a responsibility to bail people out when unforseen disaster arises. Good old fashioned socialism. The pandemic is an act of God. The disasterous effect of this pandemic is the act of an incompetent government and voters who think he's God. There are other countries who took early measures whose economies are doing quite nicely. But Boris wants our lawyer to stay at home and go bankrupt because HE shat the bed. How would you then describe the crash of 2008? Another act of God? Why were poor Britons taxed to bail out rich banks? There's your socialism in action a Robin Hood who steals from the needy and gives to the rich. Socialism yes, but reverse socialism. " The 2008 crash was an act caused by careless and greedy INVESTMENT banks The government bailed out high street RETAIL banks for no other reason than to protect the finances of the general public that use them People love to throw the phrase bailing out the bankers around without really understanding that the companies bailed out were not the same companies that caused the crash | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I think they actually were moving contractors onto PAYE via law to some extent, at least within large companies - be interesting to see if that goes ahead post lockdown. That has already started, I think it's to do with the level of supervision and the amount of instruction required in your job role. This was due to be extended to cover more job roles this year but due to Covid it has been suspended. Switching people from Ltd Company to PAYE can have an extremely detrimental and unfair effect to certain people (mainly those who need to travel and provide some of their own equipment). No really, if the employer doesnt provide expenses for them then you can call up hmrc and have the cost added to your tax allowance as deductible costs, thee act same way as you would make them deductible costs in your ltd company Even for fuel? I thought under PAYE it's the employers responsibility to pay travel costs which is problematic since most guys on PAYE are "employed" via Umbrella companies? I know someone who works in the rail industry and his contractors are really concerned when the switch happens. Not sure what the current value is but it is usually pence per mile from your base location (ie where you are deemed to work not your home so commuting not included) Anything that an employer would be allowed to compensate you for and would be tax deductible for the company , if you are not compensated then you can submit to hmrc and have your tax code adjusted for the tax portion if the expense ... you are still out of pocket for the cost, but save the tax on it wether you are employed or self employed It has to be an expense that is required for you to do your job , so for example my work dont pay my annual professional registration fees, but because i work in my profession I can have that expense added to my tax code, if i worked in another field i could not It's determined by engine size, most people can claim 45p per mile which covers the cost of fuel and vehicle maintainence. It would be interesting to see how this would apply to those who do not have a fixed location of work (construction and rail workers for example). Would the base location be the site itself (in which case transport expenses are null and void)." 45p per mile for the first 10 000 25p thereafter. Of course it goes up whenever the price of fuel goes up. NOT | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle Exactly!!! If that lawyer chose a more expensive tax structure, that lawyer wouldn't be able to compete with those who used the most efficient structure. Market forces leave competing entities no choice but to be as efficient as possible. This is the beauty of capitalism and why it works. So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. In his book Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert T Kiyosaki says there is no greater crime than to pay the taxman one dime more than you need to. Jesus said give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Nobody. Not EVEN the taxman expects you to choose the least efficient tax structure. The entire profession of accountancy is dedicated to this principle. 1. An actual lawyer who has a better idea of their costs than our wild plucked out air numbers has already debunked your theory 2 So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. Could your exact point not be quoted back to self employed now looking for this handout? Again. These people are not asking for a handout because they took a risk on the market and lost. These people are asking to be compensated for the fact they are not able to conduct their business because the GOVERNMENT is asking them not to do so. Does that sound like the free market to you? As for debunking. You debunked yourself by indicating that if a lawyer priced herself out of the market by choosing a less efficient tax structure you would go elsewhere. If Sainsbury's chose a less efficient tax structure and had to rise their prices significantly they would be out of business tomorrow. Nobody would be buying from them because they contributed more to government coffers. Take a look at Amazon, we all bitch about them not paying taxes but they are shutting down high street businesses daily. Why? Because they are cheaper. Why? Because they don't have the same overheads. Instead of worrying about the little guy making a buck or two more, why is no one worrying about big corporations who are getting bailed out while they are profiting? It seems that to make billions dishonestly is acceptable but to make 10k more honestly is a sin. The government has not just stopped people working on a whim. Worldwide, work has ground to a halt because of a pandemic. In other words what has happened is a classic act of God. You are effectively saying that governments have a responsibility to bail people out when unforseen disaster arises. Good old fashioned socialism. The pandemic is an act of God. The disasterous effect of this pandemic is the act of an incompetent government and voters who think he's God. There are other countries who took early measures whose economies are doing quite nicely. But Boris wants our lawyer to stay at home and go bankrupt because HE shat the bed. How would you then describe the crash of 2008? Another act of God? Why were poor Britons taxed to bail out rich banks? There's your socialism in action a Robin Hood who steals from the needy and gives to the rich. Socialism yes, but reverse socialism. The 2008 crash was an act caused by careless and greedy INVESTMENT banks The government bailed out high street RETAIL banks for no other reason than to protect the finances of the general public that use them People love to throw the phrase bailing out the bankers around without really understanding that the companies bailed out were not the same companies that caused the crash" Indeed, its always puzzled me that people don't see that if the banks had gone bust millions of ordinary people would have lost their savings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle Exactly!!! If that lawyer chose a more expensive tax structure, that lawyer wouldn't be able to compete with those who used the most efficient structure. Market forces leave competing entities no choice but to be as efficient as possible. This is the beauty of capitalism and why it works. So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. In his book Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert T Kiyosaki says there is no greater crime than to pay the taxman one dime more than you need to. Jesus said give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Nobody. Not EVEN the taxman expects you to choose the least efficient tax structure. The entire profession of accountancy is dedicated to this principle. 1. An actual lawyer who has a better idea of their costs than our wild plucked out air numbers has already debunked your theory 2 So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. Could your exact point not be quoted back to self employed now looking for this handout? Again. These people are not asking for a handout because they took a risk on the market and lost. These people are asking to be compensated for the fact they are not able to conduct their business because the GOVERNMENT is asking them not to do so. Does that sound like the free market to you? As for debunking. You debunked yourself by indicating that if a lawyer priced herself out of the market by choosing a less efficient tax structure you would go elsewhere. If Sainsbury's chose a less efficient tax structure and had to rise their prices significantly they would be out of business tomorrow. Nobody would be buying from them because they contributed more to government coffers. Take a look at Amazon, we all bitch about them not paying taxes but they are shutting down high street businesses daily. Why? Because they are cheaper. Why? Because they don't have the same overheads. Instead of worrying about the little guy making a buck or two more, why is no one worrying about big corporations who are getting bailed out while they are profiting? It seems that to make billions dishonestly is acceptable but to make 10k more honestly is a sin. The government has not just stopped people working on a whim. Worldwide, work has ground to a halt because of a pandemic. In other words what has happened is a classic act of God. You are effectively saying that governments have a responsibility to bail people out when unforseen disaster arises. Good old fashioned socialism. The pandemic is an act of God. The disasterous effect of this pandemic is the act of an incompetent government and voters who think he's God. There are other countries who took early measures whose economies are doing quite nicely. But Boris wants our lawyer to stay at home and go bankrupt because HE shat the bed. How would you then describe the crash of 2008? Another act of God? Why were poor Britons taxed to bail out rich banks? There's your socialism in action a Robin Hood who steals from the needy and gives to the rich. Socialism yes, but reverse socialism. The 2008 crash was an act caused by careless and greedy INVESTMENT banks The government bailed out high street RETAIL banks for no other reason than to protect the finances of the general public that use them People love to throw the phrase bailing out the bankers around without really understanding that the companies bailed out were not the same companies that caused the crash" If you want to understand the 2008 crash then watch "The Inside Job" by Matt Damon. There were laws in place to prevent the 2008 crash from happening but those laws were removed just coincidentally by the very same people who huge bonuses (in the region of hundreds of millions). This bail out of the rich to protect jobs is based on trickle down economics. Thrickle down economics doesn't work any more. Take a look at Thomas Cook. Everyone lost their jobs while the directors took bonuses to the exact value of the bailout they requested from the government. Google Norton Motorcycles and see how trickle down economics works.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"There are both advantages and disadvantages of being self employed, if you run a ltd company and work as a director on minimum salary taking dividends then yes you do pay less tax, depending on income can be up to £2600 a year for the highest incomes. Disadvantages are many as well. It's not the big earner many who have never done both realise. Self employment has many pitfalls as well, no holiday pay, no sick pay if your ill, liabilities for costs debts associated with the work/business even when not working. It is the system that allows this and some see this as unfair. If the economy does go into recession and many loose there jobs or businesses the self employed will get no redundancy payments and less access immediatley to any benefits. instead they will probably end up with debts and Bill's they have to pay to close the business.. While this is all true, self employment also allows people a greater deal of autonomy and flexibility People have a choice to be self employed or an employee, you are not forced down a path i would suggest people who chose to be self employed weighed up the risk and rewards and decided it was ultimately overall more rewarding for them , however now that the risks are catching up with the rewards, many now seem to be of the opinion that the world is unfair ... Unfortunate as it is , that is what they signed up for The shortcomings suffered by self employed are not the result of market forces. They are the result of poor governance. You are asking a person to sacrifice for the greater good and simultaneously punishing the person for that sacrifice. Expect the self employed to continue working because the government and quite evidently the non self employed don't support them when they comply with lockdown. You cannot maintain a stance of 'we're all in this together' whilst simultaneously having an 'us and them' opinion. I disagree, not being compensated at a rate higher than you chose to pay in is not the same as being punished Also i think the people out still working keeping the country going would be a better description of people making a sacrifice for the greater good Let's imagine tomorrow you need a lawyer. You ask the lawyer how much she charges and her reply is: "I could charge you £400 per hour but because I have chosen a less effect tax structure I'm going to charge you £600 per hour" Fair dinkum? Well apart from the fact that you dont save 50% by using your “efficient tax structure” so inflating by 50% in your example is ridiculous Other than that yeah ... exactly... fair dinkum Of course as a consumer i also have the choice of looking for an employed lawyer charging somewhere in the middle Exactly!!! If that lawyer chose a more expensive tax structure, that lawyer wouldn't be able to compete with those who used the most efficient structure. Market forces leave competing entities no choice but to be as efficient as possible. This is the beauty of capitalism and why it works. So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. In his book Rich Dad Poor Dad Robert T Kiyosaki says there is no greater crime than to pay the taxman one dime more than you need to. Jesus said give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Nobody. Not EVEN the taxman expects you to choose the least efficient tax structure. The entire profession of accountancy is dedicated to this principle. 1. An actual lawyer who has a better idea of their costs than our wild plucked out air numbers has already debunked your theory 2 So choose. Capitalism or communism. Not a capitalistic economy with communist ideals. Could your exact point not be quoted back to self employed now looking for this handout? Again. These people are not asking for a handout because they took a risk on the market and lost. These people are asking to be compensated for the fact they are not able to conduct their business because the GOVERNMENT is asking them not to do so. Does that sound like the free market to you? As for debunking. You debunked yourself by indicating that if a lawyer priced herself out of the market by choosing a less efficient tax structure you would go elsewhere. If Sainsbury's chose a less efficient tax structure and had to rise their prices significantly they would be out of business tomorrow. Nobody would be buying from them because they contributed more to government coffers. Take a look at Amazon, we all bitch about them not paying taxes but they are shutting down high street businesses daily. Why? Because they are cheaper. Why? Because they don't have the same overheads. Instead of worrying about the little guy making a buck or two more, why is no one worrying about big corporations who are getting bailed out while they are profiting? It seems that to make billions dishonestly is acceptable but to make 10k more honestly is a sin. The government has not just stopped people working on a whim. Worldwide, work has ground to a halt because of a pandemic. In other words what has happened is a classic act of God. You are effectively saying that governments have a responsibility to bail people out when unforseen disaster arises. Good old fashioned socialism. The pandemic is an act of God. The disasterous effect of this pandemic is the act of an incompetent government and voters who think he's God. There are other countries who took early measures whose economies are doing quite nicely. But Boris wants our lawyer to stay at home and go bankrupt because HE shat the bed. How would you then describe the crash of 2008? Another act of God? Why were poor Britons taxed to bail out rich banks? There's your socialism in action a Robin Hood who steals from the needy and gives to the rich. Socialism yes, but reverse socialism. The 2008 crash was an act caused by careless and greedy INVESTMENT banks The government bailed out high street RETAIL banks for no other reason than to protect the finances of the general public that use them People love to throw the phrase bailing out the bankers around without really understanding that the companies bailed out were not the same companies that caused the crash Indeed, its always puzzled me that people don't see that if the banks had gone bust millions of ordinary people would have lost their savings. " What is the UK national product? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"omg People still gloating about self employed people and the divi scheme... yes we do fucking pay tax... lots of it... and pay accountant to sort it. We are not all tax dodgers and many now have no work! Hairdressers designers engineers....all stuffed. If you don’t actually understand what your saying don’t put stupid posts up." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" What is the UK national product?" Disappointment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"My background is accounting for treasury finance products , i dont need to watch a hollywood movie to understand the 2008 crash but thank for the tips " It's not a movie. It's a documentary. It's investigative journalism. As opposed to state appointed journalism. (Like when the PM kicks journalists out of number 10) Ok then how much money was Alan Greenspan paid as a bonus for removing "unnecessary regulation"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" What is the UK national product?Disappointment? " Only for some. Our major revenue is from the City of London. We are a banking nation. If you are interested you can read on how the profits of the square mile have increased year on year while their taxes have lessened. Even Labour governments who have sworn to end this corruption have ended up decreasing their taxes. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-08-09/london-is-the-global-capital-of-money-laundering | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"My background is accounting for treasury finance products , i dont need to watch a hollywood movie to understand the 2008 crash but thank for the tips It's not a movie. It's a documentary. It's investigative journalism. As opposed to state appointed journalism. (Like when the PM kicks journalists out of number 10) Ok then how much money was Alan Greenspan paid as a bonus for removing "unnecessary regulation"?" Look you clearly still have a bee in your bonnet about 2 uk retail banks taking government funding to protect joe publics savings 12 years ago... open a thread and i am sure people will debate you at length about it , but really it has no relevance at all to this thread and i am over getting dragged into your tangent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Less dishonestly than a big corporation doesn’t automatically make you honest And if you argue that the big companies using a tax loophole are dishonest then you effectively have to argue that self employed using a tax loop hole are too ... The only difference is you have personal bias in one of those camps The government didn't close your market, a virus did ... the government could tell you that self employed are all allowed out tomorrow there will most likely still be no or a greatly reduced market for your services Its also no disagree with amazon or disagree with 10k jonny ... its possible to believe both are in the wrong Its also possible to not really care what you do normally or think its a sin, but still think it doesn't mean the government should go out of their way to complicate their system to start checking everyones dividend sources, slowing down applications for people that just pay the bloody tax and national insurance all to compensate you for something you specifically chose to keep money out the tax mans pocket ... at the end of the day benefits are paid for from the national insurance scheme, a scheme that you don't pay into " 100% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"My background is accounting for treasury finance products , i dont need to watch a hollywood movie to understand the 2008 crash but thank for the tips It's not a movie. It's a documentary. It's investigative journalism. As opposed to state appointed journalism. (Like when the PM kicks journalists out of number 10) Ok then how much money was Alan Greenspan paid as a bonus for removing "unnecessary regulation"? Look you clearly still have a bee in your bonnet about 2 uk retail banks taking government funding to protect joe publics savings 12 years ago... open a thread and i am sure people will debate you at length about it , but really it has no relevance at all to this thread and i am over getting dragged into your tangent" It has everything to do with this thread. Why are people blaming people for 10k tax avoidance when the country is ruined by people making millions/billions? Bee in my bonet? I'm calmly discussing the reasoning behind bailouts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"My background is accounting for treasury finance products , i dont need to watch a hollywood movie to understand the 2008 crash but thank for the tips It's not a movie. It's a documentary. It's investigative journalism. As opposed to state appointed journalism. (Like when the PM kicks journalists out of number 10) Ok then how much money was Alan Greenspan paid as a bonus for removing "unnecessary regulation"? Look you clearly still have a bee in your bonnet about 2 uk retail banks taking government funding to protect joe publics savings 12 years ago... open a thread and i am sure people will debate you at length about it , but really it has no relevance at all to this thread and i am over getting dragged into your tangent It has everything to do with this thread. Why are people blaming people for 10k tax avoidance when the country is ruined by people making millions/billions? Bee in my bonet? I'm calmly discussing the reasoning behind bailouts." What a bank or amazon or Thomas cook or any other company you have mentioned so far pay in or dont pay in, makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the fact that your personal use of a tax efficient loophole has meant you got less support from the government ... that is what the thread was about And even if they all paid in more and there was unlimited funds available, it also wouldn’t change the fact that to get you “what you think you are entitled to” , the government would have to add the additional layer of admin of verifying the source of peoples dividend income as part of the application process, which would slow it down for all the people that don’t use loop holes and just pay their tax and national insurance in full , all this to assess an income on which national insurance is not paid snd therefore should not be included in a calculation of what is effectively a national insurance payout | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Paying more for anything than you need to is stupid. Paying more for your car or your petrol or your groceries is stupid. Paying more tax than you need to is stupid. The title of this thread should be "The lawyer who wasn't stupid deserves to starve because she wasn't stupid" I do not know one single employed person who pays more tax than they need to either." Multiple in this thread have said they opted to take as salary Instead of dividends at the advice of their accountants Nobody said the lawyer deserves to starve, they just gotta get by on minimum wage for a while | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Well put sir.... some absolute wankers on this thread... smug ignorant and absolute bell ends! " What a wonderfully mature response, i bet its exactly how you used to feel completing your tax return knowing how much you had saved over those idiots paying in more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"My background is accounting for treasury finance products , i dont need to watch a hollywood movie to understand the 2008 crash but thank for the tips It's not a movie. It's a documentary. It's investigative journalism. As opposed to state appointed journalism. (Like when the PM kicks journalists out of number 10) Ok then how much money was Alan Greenspan paid as a bonus for removing "unnecessary regulation"? Look you clearly still have a bee in your bonnet about 2 uk retail banks taking government funding to protect joe publics savings 12 years ago... open a thread and i am sure people will debate you at length about it , but really it has no relevance at all to this thread and i am over getting dragged into your tangent It has everything to do with this thread. Why are people blaming people for 10k tax avoidance when the country is ruined by people making millions/billions? Bee in my bonet? I'm calmly discussing the reasoning behind bailouts. What a bank or amazon or Thomas cook or any other company you have mentioned so far pay in or dont pay in, makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the fact that your personal use of a tax efficient loophole has meant you got less support from the government ... that is what the thread was about And even if they all paid in more and there was unlimited funds available, it also wouldn’t change the fact that to get you “what you think you are entitled to” , the government would have to add the additional layer of admin of verifying the source of peoples dividend income as part of the application process, which would slow it down for all the people that don’t use loop holes and just pay their tax and national insurance in full , all this to assess an income on which national insurance is not paid snd therefore should not be included in a calculation of what is effectively a national insurance payout" Loophole? What loophole? The tax laws are the tax laws. Tax evasion is illegal tax avoidance is expected. If the director of a company pays more in overheads than he or she needs to then that director is failing in his or her duty. What we are talking about here is the destruction of the small business entrepreneur with only big corporations who have employees. In essence a version of communism where the State is replaced by big business. What the mindset of the argument on this thread is that the lady lawyer in question should have joined a big law firm instead of striking out on her own. That's not Capitalism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Well put sir.... some absolute wankers on this thread... smug ignorant and absolute bell ends! " The calm, measured voice of reason | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Paying more for anything than you need to is stupid. Paying more for your car or your petrol or your groceries is stupid. Paying more tax than you need to is stupid. The title of this thread should be "The lawyer who wasn't stupid deserves to starve because she wasn't stupid" I do not know one single employed person who pays more tax than they need to either. Multiple in this thread have said they opted to take as salary Instead of dividends at the advice of their accountants Nobody said the lawyer deserves to starve, they just gotta get by on minimum wage for a while " And minimum wage will pay the rent of her office? Her electricity bill? Her internet? Her accountant? Etc etc. All those bills employees don't have to worry about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Paying more for anything than you need to is stupid. Paying more for your car or your petrol or your groceries is stupid. Paying more tax than you need to is stupid. The title of this thread should be "The lawyer who wasn't stupid deserves to starve because she wasn't stupid" I do not know one single employed person who pays more tax than they need to either. Multiple in this thread have said they opted to take as salary Instead of dividends at the advice of their accountants Nobody said the lawyer deserves to starve, they just gotta get by on minimum wage for a while And minimum wage will pay the rent of her office? Her electricity bill? Her internet? Her accountant? Etc etc. All those bills employees don't have to worry about." No, the fee incoem of the practice will pay those bills - the same fee income out fo which they pay themselves minimum wage, before then topping their income up at the end of the year with a dividend on which they pay less tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"If I was the chancellor I would be seeing an opportunity here " The guy who said he would "stand behind each and every one of us"? The one who doesn't want us to become 'addicted' to being able to afford food? The same one who introduced the CBILS which hardly anyone has aquired whilst other countries in Europe have issued more than tenfold the amount of loans. That guy? Who will be the low hanging fruit when the contractors have left? Hmmmm? The big corporations or the employees? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Paying more for anything than you need to is stupid. Paying more for your car or your petrol or your groceries is stupid. Paying more tax than you need to is stupid. The title of this thread should be "The lawyer who wasn't stupid deserves to starve because she wasn't stupid" I do not know one single employed person who pays more tax than they need to either. Multiple in this thread have said they opted to take as salary Instead of dividends at the advice of their accountants Nobody said the lawyer deserves to starve, they just gotta get by on minimum wage for a while And minimum wage will pay the rent of her office? Her electricity bill? Her internet? Her accountant? Etc etc. All those bills employees don't have to worry about.No, the fee incoem of the practice will pay those bills - the same fee income out fo which they pay themselves minimum wage, before then topping their income up at the end of the year with a dividend on which they pay less tax." What income? Boris has told her to stay at home. How is this person at home in lockdown earning an income? This lady lawyer getting nothing just like the rest of us but has expenses the rest of us don't pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Paying more for anything than you need to is stupid. Paying more for your car or your petrol or your groceries is stupid. Paying more tax than you need to is stupid. The title of this thread should be "The lawyer who wasn't stupid deserves to starve because she wasn't stupid" I do not know one single employed person who pays more tax than they need to either. Multiple in this thread have said they opted to take as salary Instead of dividends at the advice of their accountants Nobody said the lawyer deserves to starve, they just gotta get by on minimum wage for a while And minimum wage will pay the rent of her office? Her electricity bill? Her internet? Her accountant? Etc etc. All those bills employees don't have to worry about.No, the fee incoem of the practice will pay those bills - the same fee income out fo which they pay themselves minimum wage, before then topping their income up at the end of the year with a dividend on which they pay less tax. What income? Boris has told her to stay at home. How is this person at home in lockdown earning an income? This lady lawyer getting nothing just like the rest of us but has expenses the rest of us don't pay." I assume she can get furlough on her taxable salary like everyone else but not her divided payments, again like everyone else | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Paying more for anything than you need to is stupid. Paying more for your car or your petrol or your groceries is stupid. Paying more tax than you need to is stupid. The title of this thread should be "The lawyer who wasn't stupid deserves to starve because she wasn't stupid" I do not know one single employed person who pays more tax than they need to either. Multiple in this thread have said they opted to take as salary Instead of dividends at the advice of their accountants Nobody said the lawyer deserves to starve, they just gotta get by on minimum wage for a while And minimum wage will pay the rent of her office? Her electricity bill? Her internet? Her accountant? Etc etc. All those bills employees don't have to worry about.No, the fee incoem of the practice will pay those bills - the same fee income out fo which they pay themselves minimum wage, before then topping their income up at the end of the year with a dividend on which they pay less tax. What income? Boris has told her to stay at home. How is this person at home in lockdown earning an income? This lady lawyer getting nothing just like the rest of us but has expenses the rest of us don't pay. I assume she can get furlough on her taxable salary like everyone else but not her divided payments, again like everyone else " Yep that's about the tale of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Paying more for anything than you need to is stupid. Paying more for your car or your petrol or your groceries is stupid. Paying more tax than you need to is stupid. The title of this thread should be "The lawyer who wasn't stupid deserves to starve because she wasn't stupid" I do not know one single employed person who pays more tax than they need to either. Multiple in this thread have said they opted to take as salary Instead of dividends at the advice of their accountants Nobody said the lawyer deserves to starve, they just gotta get by on minimum wage for a while And minimum wage will pay the rent of her office? Her electricity bill? Her internet? Her accountant? Etc etc. All those bills employees don't have to worry about.No, the fee incoem of the practice will pay those bills - the same fee income out fo which they pay themselves minimum wage, before then topping their income up at the end of the year with a dividend on which they pay less tax. What income? Boris has told her to stay at home. How is this person at home in lockdown earning an income? This lady lawyer getting nothing just like the rest of us but has expenses the rest of us don't pay. I assume she can get furlough on her taxable salary like everyone else but not her divided payments, again like everyone else " She can furlough herself which means that as an individual she now has 80% of her salaried income paid by the government. In order to pay her business rent and other expenses she is contractually committed to she will probably have to pay into her business or see it go under. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Unfortunately plenty of people are discovering that benefits aren't just for scroungers. If the lawyer in the original post can't manage on minimum wage then she's welcome to apply to supermarkets etc to make up the difference. " What will happen is after lockdown she will return to her business to find it so deeply in debt that it is not worth keeping going so she will declare bankruptcy. The same person who used to pay over £100 000 in taxes will now be on benefits. Awesome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Unfortunately plenty of people are discovering that benefits aren't just for scroungers. If the lawyer in the original post can't manage on minimum wage then she's welcome to apply to supermarkets etc to make up the difference. What will happen is after lockdown she will return to her business to find it so deeply in debt that it is not worth keeping going so she will declare bankruptcy. The same person who used to pay over £100 000 in taxes will now be on benefits. Awesome. " You need to stop plucking random ridiculous values from the air to make your points it doesnt work If a self employed person pays in £100k a year in tax, then they are making almost £500k profit (after expenses including their small salary) if they havent put a little by to tide them over a few months then more fool them for wasting their money ... of course i doubt that scenario exists because it is farcical | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Unfortunately plenty of people are discovering that benefits aren't just for scroungers. If the lawyer in the original post can't manage on minimum wage then she's welcome to apply to supermarkets etc to make up the difference. What will happen is after lockdown she will return to her business to find it so deeply in debt that it is not worth keeping going so she will declare bankruptcy. The same person who used to pay over £100 000 in taxes will now be on benefits. Awesome. " She didn't pay £100k tax. She paid herself minimum wage to lower her tax bill. If she's a good enough lawyer she'll get another legal job after this. Meanwhile my full sized violin is busy with more deserving cases. She just gets the tiny one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"In fact this is going to happen... a lot businesses will live off VAT, CBILS, BBLS etc by giving themselves directors loans and then declare bankruptcy when it's business as usual. The taxpayer will pick up the bill. The small business owner will just shrug and say that it's because they weren't supported. " I might be wrong because i am not a business law expert, but i am pretty sure thats embezzlement and illegal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It seems that the fuckwits don’t seem to understand that we do pay tax in accordance with what we earn... that some of us don’t have any work now or are unable to work for whatever reasons ( homeschooling kids, high risk groups, being told not to work etc)... And yes if I could I would do other work even the old favourite stacking shelves in tescos... perhaps they should bring back national service that might solve it...f u c k w I t z z z " We also understand that you prop up “what you your earn” with money from the business that are not “earnings” and therefore not paye and therefore not being taxed under the same rules | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"It seems that the fuckwits don’t seem to understand that we do pay tax in accordance with what we earn... that some of us don’t have any work now or are unable to work for whatever reasons ( homeschooling kids, high risk groups, being told not to work etc)... And yes if I could I would do other work even the old favourite stacking shelves in tescos... perhaps they should bring back national service that might solve it...f u c k w I t z z z We also understand that you prop up “what you your earn” with money from the business that are not “earnings” and therefore not paye and therefore not being taxed under the same rules " By your same logic you are currently being compensated “in accordance with what you earn” so where is the problem ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Unfortunately plenty of people are discovering that benefits aren't just for scroungers. If the lawyer in the original post can't manage on minimum wage then she's welcome to apply to supermarkets etc to make up the difference. What will happen is after lockdown she will return to her business to find it so deeply in debt that it is not worth keeping going so she will declare bankruptcy. The same person who used to pay over £100 000 in taxes will now be on benefits. Awesome. You need to stop plucking random ridiculous values from the air to make your points it doesnt work If a self employed person pays in £100k a year in tax, then they are making almost £500k profit (after expenses including their small salary) if they havent put a little by to tide them over a few months then more fool them for wasting their money ... of course i doubt that scenario exists because it is farcical " That's the same argument that should have been applied in 2008 for the banks. But wasn't. And your maths is incorrect. A person generating £500k per year is paying 20% VAT which is 100k alone. Now there's CT on profits. Then there's dividend tax on those same profits again... at that rate 38.1% and then self assessment tax. So how did you get £500k? And before you jump on the VAT let's remember that a bankrupt business generates NO VAT. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"In fact this is going to happen... a lot businesses will live off VAT, CBILS, BBLS etc by giving themselves directors loans and then declare bankruptcy when it's business as usual. The taxpayer will pick up the bill. The small business owner will just shrug and say that it's because they weren't supported. I might be wrong because i am not a business law expert, but i am pretty sure thats embezzlement and illegal " You mean like the directors of Thomas Cook who £20 million in bonuses as the company collapsed and the taxpayer had to fly everyone home? Are they in jail? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"In fact this is going to happen... a lot businesses will live off VAT, CBILS, BBLS etc by giving themselves directors loans and then declare bankruptcy when it's business as usual. The taxpayer will pick up the bill. The small business owner will just shrug and say that it's because they weren't supported. I might be wrong because i am not a business law expert, but i am pretty sure thats embezzlement and illegal You mean like the directors of Thomas Cook who £20 million in bonuses as the company collapsed and the taxpayer had to fly everyone home? Are they in jail?" Company directors are allowed to give themselves loans called Directors Loans. As long as they are paid back in 9 months and one day there is no tax on the loan. Limited liability companies have.... well... limited liability. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Unfortunately plenty of people are discovering that benefits aren't just for scroungers. If the lawyer in the original post can't manage on minimum wage then she's welcome to apply to supermarkets etc to make up the difference. What will happen is after lockdown she will return to her business to find it so deeply in debt that it is not worth keeping going so she will declare bankruptcy. The same person who used to pay over £100 000 in taxes will now be on benefits. Awesome. You need to stop plucking random ridiculous values from the air to make your points it doesnt work If a self employed person pays in £100k a year in tax, then they are making almost £500k profit (after expenses including their small salary) if they havent put a little by to tide them over a few months then more fool them for wasting their money ... of course i doubt that scenario exists because it is farcical That's the same argument that should have been applied in 2008 for the banks. But wasn't. And your maths is incorrect. A person generating £500k per year is paying 20% VAT which is 100k alone. Now there's CT on profits. Then there's dividend tax on those same profits again... at that rate 38.1% and then self assessment tax. So how did you get £500k? And before you jump on the VAT let's remember that a bankrupt business generates NO VAT." Okay you went with a ridiculous number so i went with a simple calculation ... VAT is a consumer tax, a business just collects it on behalf of hmrc, At those levels a company would be registered for VAT , meaning they actually save money because they only pay the difference between what they collected from the consumer (in your example of lawyer its 400 per hour plus vat) pay and everything you have paid out in vat can be offset against it ... that is not your personal tax contribution you were just the middle man collecting it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Unfortunately plenty of people are discovering that benefits aren't just for scroungers. If the lawyer in the original post can't manage on minimum wage then she's welcome to apply to supermarkets etc to make up the difference. What will happen is after lockdown she will return to her business to find it so deeply in debt that it is not worth keeping going so she will declare bankruptcy. The same person who used to pay over £100 000 in taxes will now be on benefits. Awesome. You need to stop plucking random ridiculous values from the air to make your points it doesnt work If a self employed person pays in £100k a year in tax, then they are making almost £500k profit (after expenses including their small salary) if they havent put a little by to tide them over a few months then more fool them for wasting their money ... of course i doubt that scenario exists because it is farcical That's the same argument that should have been applied in 2008 for the banks. But wasn't. And your maths is incorrect. A person generating £500k per year is paying 20% VAT which is 100k alone. Now there's CT on profits. Then there's dividend tax on those same profits again... at that rate 38.1% and then self assessment tax. So how did you get £500k? And before you jump on the VAT let's remember that a bankrupt business generates NO VAT." If she's self employed and generating those numbers then my sympathy levels get even lower if she has managed to put a fiver away for a rainy day. I've got no idea what her pre-covid earnings were but she wasn't a zero hours waiter who won't work properly again until Christmas. Those same waiters also aren't getting tronc included in their furlough pay so in some cases are only getting 50 or 60‰ of their already low wage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Paying more for anything than you need to is stupid. Paying more for your car or your petrol or your groceries is stupid. Paying more tax than you need to is stupid. The title of this thread should be "The lawyer who wasn't stupid deserves to starve because she wasn't stupid" I do not know one single employed person who pays more tax than they need to either. Multiple in this thread have said they opted to take as salary Instead of dividends at the advice of their accountants Nobody said the lawyer deserves to starve, they just gotta get by on minimum wage for a while And minimum wage will pay the rent of her office? Her electricity bill? Her internet? Her accountant? Etc etc. All those bills employees don't have to worry about.No, the fee incoem of the practice will pay those bills - the same fee income out fo which they pay themselves minimum wage, before then topping their income up at the end of the year with a dividend on which they pay less tax. What income? Boris has told her to stay at home. How is this person at home in lockdown earning an income? This lady lawyer getting nothing just like the rest of us but has expenses the rest of us don't pay. I assume she can get furlough on her taxable salary like everyone else but not her divided payments, again like everyone else She can furlough herself which means that as an individual she now has 80% of her salaried income paid by the government. In order to pay her business rent and other expenses she is contractually committed to she will probably have to pay into her business or see it go under." I understand but she has the ability to fold her company and restart another without any worries about being chased for the debt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"... she may not be a business expert? " I said im not a business law expert.., I’ve never claimed to be a lawyer, already made it clear i am an treasury finance accountant ... and you appear to be unable to provide any mature or worthwhile contribution to the debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Nuttyjohn... that’s exactly what was said earlier... lots will consider this option and then big holes are left on government purse. " Well you have to close your company as per the tax rules, tbh I've done it, but not due to debts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Unfortunately plenty of people are discovering that benefits aren't just for scroungers. If the lawyer in the original post can't manage on minimum wage then she's welcome to apply to supermarkets etc to make up the difference. What will happen is after lockdown she will return to her business to find it so deeply in debt that it is not worth keeping going so she will declare bankruptcy. The same person who used to pay over £100 000 in taxes will now be on benefits. Awesome. You need to stop plucking random ridiculous values from the air to make your points it doesnt work If a self employed person pays in £100k a year in tax, then they are making almost £500k profit (after expenses including their small salary) if they havent put a little by to tide them over a few months then more fool them for wasting their money ... of course i doubt that scenario exists because it is farcical That's the same argument that should have been applied in 2008 for the banks. But wasn't. And your maths is incorrect. A person generating £500k per year is paying 20% VAT which is 100k alone. Now there's CT on profits. Then there's dividend tax on those same profits again... at that rate 38.1% and then self assessment tax. So how did you get £500k? And before you jump on the VAT let's remember that a bankrupt business generates NO VAT. Okay you went with a ridiculous number so i went with a simple calculation ... VAT is a consumer tax, a business just collects it on behalf of hmrc, At those levels a company would be registered for VAT , meaning they actually save money because they only pay the difference between what they collected from the consumer (in your example of lawyer its 400 per hour plus vat) pay and everything you have paid out in vat can be offset against it ... that is not your personal tax contribution you were just the middle man collecting it " And in preempting that argument I have said that once that person is out of business they collect NO VAT. Whereas they once contributed to the government coffers they become s drain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"... she may not be a business expert? I said im not a business law expert.., I’ve never claimed to be a lawyer, already made it clear i am an treasury finance accountant ... and you appear to be unable to provide any mature or worthwhile contribution to the debate " More fool me i guess for being able to acknowledge where i have a weakness in knowledge... should just pretended to know everything about everything and that all my biased opinions are fact like some others seem to do on these forums Have a nice weekend folks , I’m out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Unfortunately plenty of people are discovering that benefits aren't just for scroungers. If the lawyer in the original post can't manage on minimum wage then she's welcome to apply to supermarkets etc to make up the difference. What will happen is after lockdown she will return to her business to find it so deeply in debt that it is not worth keeping going so she will declare bankruptcy. The same person who used to pay over £100 000 in taxes will now be on benefits. Awesome. You need to stop plucking random ridiculous values from the air to make your points it doesnt work If a self employed person pays in £100k a year in tax, then they are making almost £500k profit (after expenses including their small salary) if they havent put a little by to tide them over a few months then more fool them for wasting their money ... of course i doubt that scenario exists because it is farcical That's the same argument that should have been applied in 2008 for the banks. But wasn't. And your maths is incorrect. A person generating £500k per year is paying 20% VAT which is 100k alone. Now there's CT on profits. Then there's dividend tax on those same profits again... at that rate 38.1% and then self assessment tax. So how did you get £500k? And before you jump on the VAT let's remember that a bankrupt business generates NO VAT. Okay you went with a ridiculous number so i went with a simple calculation ... VAT is a consumer tax, a business just collects it on behalf of hmrc, At those levels a company would be registered for VAT , meaning they actually save money because they only pay the difference between what they collected from the consumer (in your example of lawyer its 400 per hour plus vat) pay and everything you have paid out in vat can be offset against it ... that is not your personal tax contribution you were just the middle man collecting it And in preempting that argument I have said that once that person is out of business they collect NO VAT. Whereas they once contributed to the government coffers they become s drain." The consumer will take their business elsewhere and pay VAT there so thats a false assumption | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"So John if you close your ltd company, which is fairly easy I guess... are you still liable to pay what you owe in tax? Can you outline roughly what millions of self employed struggling people might do please..." Yes you still have your tax liabilities and it's not my job to advise self employed or employed people in these difficult times. I am firm believer in getting the economy back up and running asap | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Unfortunately plenty of people are discovering that benefits aren't just for scroungers. If the lawyer in the original post can't manage on minimum wage then she's welcome to apply to supermarkets etc to make up the difference. What will happen is after lockdown she will return to her business to find it so deeply in debt that it is not worth keeping going so she will declare bankruptcy. The same person who used to pay over £100 000 in taxes will now be on benefits. Awesome. You need to stop plucking random ridiculous values from the air to make your points it doesnt work If a self employed person pays in £100k a year in tax, then they are making almost £500k profit (after expenses including their small salary) if they havent put a little by to tide them over a few months then more fool them for wasting their money ... of course i doubt that scenario exists because it is farcical That's the same argument that should have been applied in 2008 for the banks. But wasn't. And your maths is incorrect. A person generating £500k per year is paying 20% VAT which is 100k alone. Now there's CT on profits. Then there's dividend tax on those same profits again... at that rate 38.1% and then self assessment tax. So how did you get £500k? And before you jump on the VAT let's remember that a bankrupt business generates NO VAT. Okay you went with a ridiculous number so i went with a simple calculation ... VAT is a consumer tax, a business just collects it on behalf of hmrc, At those levels a company would be registered for VAT , meaning they actually save money because they only pay the difference between what they collected from the consumer (in your example of lawyer its 400 per hour plus vat) pay and everything you have paid out in vat can be offset against it ... that is not your personal tax contribution you were just the middle man collecting it And in preempting that argument I have said that once that person is out of business they collect NO VAT. Whereas they once contributed to the government coffers they become s drain. The consumer will take their business elsewhere and pay VAT there so thats a false assumption " Really? Last year I worked for Cocacola in Argentina who pay a lot of money for my skills. If I am not available next year they will probably get someone from the USA. How will HMRC get money from that? Right now my end customer is in Europe. Same argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"So John if you close your ltd company, which is fairly easy I guess... are you still liable to pay what you owe in tax? Can you outline roughly what millions of self employed struggling people might do please... Yes you still have your tax liabilities and it's not my job to advise self employed or employed people in these difficult times. I am firm believer in getting the economy back up and running asap" Strangely the economists are predicting the worst depression in human history. I hope you're right and they are wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I said the below on another thread much along these lines and I'll say it again Those who are moaning about us self employed not paying tax etc. (I'm included in this taking dividends) If you went self employed you'd set your business up in a way which was the most tax efficient and gave you more money in your pocket. We all pay what we have to in accordance with the rules, there's no tax dodging. " Last one I genuinely don’t think people are moaning at you using a tax efficient structure ... the rules are there and you are free to use them The OP and what my understanding of what most people are calling out, is the hypocrisy of people moaning at not being eligible for support on the funds that went through that tax efficient structure ... those funds did not form part of the calculation that paid into national insurance, it therefore makes sense for them to be excluded from the calculation of a payout from national insurance but many self employed people seem to think that excluding them on the way in was fair but excluding them in the pay out is unfair, which is where people who take their full wage through a paye system where both employee and employer have paid NI contributions on that wage understandbly dont agree with them Its like a block of flats having a shared building policy, 5 of them having their own contents insurance and one flat not... the building goes on fire and the guy in that last flat expecting the same payout as all the other 5 that were paying an additional policy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The lawyer will not be able to get furloughed, let me explain. Ltd company, and one man band is classed as self employed when it comes to Job centre, and Universal credit. When it comes to HMRC they are classed as employed, as employed by their own company. The payroll amount of £8632.00, which is the income they will declare has to be done before 05/04/2020, you will find they would of done this between 31/03/2020 and 05/04/2020, trust me on that. HMRC will say you are after the 19/03/2020 deadline, yes know that was for self employed, but it also now covers Ltd company people. Even if the payroll was declared before 19/03/2020, they will only get one furloughed payment, because only one payroll was declared. A one man band Ltd company will only do one payroll, once again trust me on that. Why the figure of £8632.00 you may ask, well that is the figure this year to avoid paying income tax and help with NI, the rest of their income is made up of dividend's, and loans, and I mean loans within the company, not going to explain as it will take to long. Until the Government changed the date too 19/03/2020, less than 50% of people could get furloughed, now the date is 19/03/2020, the figure is just over 50%, have a look at Martin Lewis video to clarify. So the furlough system is letting thousands of people down. The Limited company people are coming to an end because of IR35 which should of been in place now, but was put back a year because of present day issues IR35 will end approx 90% of limited companies. I find it sad that some people want this lawyer to fail and struggle, we are all getting hit by the Government, and have been hit and battered by Government's in the past, does not matter which one is in power they always take the peoples money. Remember it is not Government money or funding, it is all tax payers money" Bang on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I said the below on another thread much along these lines and I'll say it again Those who are moaning about us self employed not paying tax etc. (I'm included in this taking dividends) If you went self employed you'd set your business up in a way which was the most tax efficient and gave you more money in your pocket. We all pay what we have to in accordance with the rules, there's no tax dodging. Last one I genuinely don’t think people are moaning at you using a tax efficient structure ... the rules are there and you are free to use them The OP and what my understanding of what most people are calling out, is the hypocrisy of people moaning at not being eligible for support on the funds that went through that tax efficient structure ... those funds did not form part of the calculation that paid into national insurance, it therefore makes sense for them to be excluded from the calculation of a payout from national insurance but many self employed people seem to think that excluding them on the way in was fair but excluding them in the pay out is unfair, which is where people who take their full wage through a paye system where both employee and employer have paid NI contributions on that wage understandbly dont agree with them Its like a block of flats having a shared building policy, 5 of them having their own contents insurance and one flat not... the building goes on fire and the guy in that last flat expecting the same payout as all the other 5 that were paying an additional policy " It would be a fair comment if it weren't the other tenants who set the building on fire. I'm not going to go into the monumental fuckup this government has made of handling this pandemic, but other governments have managed to avoid lockdown altogether. That's the government's fault not the lady lawyers fault. The idea of the government support is to enable people to stay at home and not spread COVID-19. The lady lawyer will have keep on with business as usual if she doesn't want to go bankrupt because our government shat the bed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don't want the lawyer to fail. I'm just not going to lose any sleep over someone who can no longer pay Tarquin's school fees. " One day when you need a lawyer and they are all on benefits you might think differently. Is it my understanding that you resent the lawyer for earning a good income? Perhaps that's what the underlying argument is.... why should people who probably have savings be bailed out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Ir35 would have finished me and most of the self employed people...that’s for sure" Enter the era of the umbrella company.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I don't want the lawyer to fail. I'm just not going to lose any sleep over someone who can no longer pay Tarquin's school fees. One day when you need a lawyer and they are all on benefits you might think differently. Is it my understanding that you resent the lawyer for earning a good income? Perhaps that's what the underlying argument is.... why should people who probably have savings be bailed out?" Not in the slightest. She's qualified for government support but isn't happy with the amount. That's life and she needs to adjust accordingly. Someone on a lawyer's salary should have been able to put something away. This is going to make people homeless in a few weeks when the stay on eviction ends. Plenty of people are getting either less than 80% or nothing at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"For those of you who missed the election.... a large portion of the country's tax burden rests on the shoulders of 1% of our population. After this is over many on those 1% will no longer be paying any tax at all. That means either: 1) An increase of taxes for the rest of us. 2) Diminished public services such as NHS, schooling etc 3) A combination of (1) and (2) Either way I wouldn't be jumping for joy at their demise. They are the goose that lays the golden egg and we should be keeping them going not freezing them out." Anyone who is part of the 1% will be fine. And I'm OK with higher taxes as long as the 0% are included as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"If someone had told me 3 months ago that I’d spend this bank holiday under house arrest, following (and actually enjoying) a debate about taxation on a sex website, I wouldn’t have believed them." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"If someone had told me 3 months ago that I’d spend this bank holiday under house arrest, following (and actually enjoying) a debate about taxation on a sex website, I wouldn’t have believed them." You read my mind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"And following up from the earlier comment...perhaps we all live in the same fire damaged building but the flat at the bottom owns the key to the loft for the other 4 fuckwits that live above...I’m not a property expert but just saying..." Are you Eric Cantona in disguise? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"For those of you who missed the election.... a large portion of the country's tax burden rests on the shoulders of 1% of our population. After this is over many on those 1% will no longer be paying any tax at all. That means either: 1) An increase of taxes for the rest of us. 2) Diminished public services such as NHS, schooling etc 3) A combination of (1) and (2) Either way I wouldn't be jumping for joy at their demise. They are the goose that lays the golden egg and we should be keeping them going not freezing them out. Anyone who is part of the 1% will be fine. And I'm OK with higher taxes as long as the 0% are included as well. " Time will tell. If the news reports are anything to go by those 1% who don't go under will certainly have diminished earnings, ergo diminished profits and less tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"And following up from the earlier comment...perhaps we all live in the same fire damaged building but the flat at the bottom owns the key to the loft for the other 4 fuckwits that live above...I’m not a property expert but just saying... Are you Eric Cantona in disguise? " Actually the argument is flawed because dividends are taxed as income. So to say they are not income now is to hold two contradictory beliefs in contention simultaneously. Anything above £37 501 is taxed at 32.5 % so this myth that people who take the majority of earnings as dividends don't pay tax is bullshit. If you pay tax on it as earnings then it should be compensated for proportionately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"So on Radio 2 yesterday there was a lawyer whining she was on 80% of minimum wage and struggling to cope. Transpired as she was self employed she paid herself the legal minimum wage ( and hence very little tax I assume) and dividends as part of her income. I’m no tax expert but this seems to be a legal means of avoiding paying more tax as opposed to those on PAYE. My point is, ( and I tried ringing in to say it ) if you use the system to pay less tax, don’t cry if the system doesn’t treat you the same as those who pay 40/50% tax on those on PAYE. It was disgusting to hear the lawyer whining when there are brave NHS staff, from doctors to cleaners going into work, risking their life to save others. " Does anyone know what she was asking for? Was it to have 100 percent of the min wage or to have 80 percent of of wage plus dividends? I understand there is a £2500 per month limit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |