!!!!!! - Clown to raise the top rate of tax to 45%

ad44downey

pickles110564 wrote: »

But the rich will find ways not to pay any more Tax. So no-one will win except for the rich getting richer.

Yawn! This tired argument is always trotted out by those with a vested interest.

If you were right, the rich wouldn't be paying any tax at all at the moment so why worry if income tax goes from 40 to 45% as they won't be paying any tax anyway.

Jonbvn

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the company doesn't carry on earning money when you aren't working :rolleyes:

For temporary absences, the contract rates more than compensate for a few days lost through sickness and holidays etc.

The major issue is ensuring you are employed (i.e. your company is engaged). TBH, if you are unemployed then the comparison between contract and employed status is irrelevant. Remember that in the UK most redundancy payments for employees are generally poor.

IMHO, the ideal of being a long term employee with any organisation outside of gov't will decline to virtually nil over the next few decades.

Generali

ad44downey wrote: »

Yawn! This tired argument is always trotted out by those with a vested interest.

If you were right, the rich wouldn't be paying any tax at all at the moment so why worry if income tax goes from 40 to 45% as they won't be paying any tax anyway.

The higher tax rates are, the more time and money it is worth putting in to avoid or evade them. I would think that's self-evident. If tax rates go from 40-45% it's worth just that little bit more effort or risk not to pay. If they go to 80-90% it's worth quite a lot of effort or risk not to pay.

It's the same with anything. I don't shop around if I'm buying a Kit Kat because I'm only going to save a few pennies. I do if I'm buying a car.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

The higher tax rates are, the more time and money it is worth putting in to avoid or evade them. I would think that's self-evident. If tax rates go from 40-45% it's worth just that little bit more effort or risk not to pay. If they go to 80-90% it's worth quite a lot of effort or risk not to pay.

It's the same with anything. I don't shop around if I'm buying a Kit Kat because I'm only going to save a few pennies. I do if I'm buying a car.

I bet !!!!!! does!

neverdespairgirl

It seems that the devil is in the detail.

Because of the withdrawal of personal allowances at certain stages, the tax rise isn't just 40% to 45% at £150k. I suppose accountants are happy. In effect, the BBC says it's as follows:

Q10: Peter, UK

I have seen reported that the higher tax rate is now a terrible muddle for example, for incomes above £43,875 to £100,000, the rate of tax will be 40%. For incomes from £100,000 to £106,475 the rate will increase to 50%. For incomes above £106,475 up to £140,000, the rate drops to 40% again. For incomes of £140,001 to £146,475 the tax rate is again 50% and for incomes above £150,000 the rate will be 45%. Is this right?

A: John Whiting

It is a muddle - pensioners who currently face a marginal rate of 30% as their allowances are adjusted will recognise the issue.

As you say, we have a 'main' higher rate of 40%. From April 2010 the personal allowance starts to be reduced for those with incomes of £100,000+. In fact HALF the allowance is withdraw initially, the other half goes as incomes exceed £140,000.

So in fact marginal rates are: up to £100k, 40%; £100,000-£106,475 60%; then back to 40%; then £140,000-£146,475 60% again; then 40% until £150,000 when the new 45% rate kicks in....although that only comes in from 2011. And of course we should really add NICs at 1.5% to all those rates!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/7748150.stm

michaels

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

As you say, we have a 'main' higher rate of 40%. From April 2010 the personal allowance starts to be reduced for those with incomes of £100,000+. In fact HALF the allowance is withdraw initially, the other half goes as incomes exceed £140,000.

So in fact marginal rates are: up to £100k, 40%; £100,000-£106,475 60%; then back to 40%; then £140,000-£146,475 60% again; then 40% until £150,000 when the new 45% rate kicks in....although that only comes in from 2011. And of course we should really add NICs at 1.5% to all those rates!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/7748150.stm

Hmm - the argument for a flat tax has just advanced a notch or two in my opinion

Dithering_Dad

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the company doesn't carry on earning money when you aren't working :rolleyes:

This is the same for all companies during hard times, look at woolies and MFI - they're earning less money than they're spending in wages, rents, etc.

The money a company earns in the 'good years' should be sat in the company bank account, ready to cover salaries and other outgoings during lean years. If the directors decide to give that money away in overly generous dividends to their shareholders then that's their choice, but they can't moan when they go bust. Northern Rock, HBOS, etc. take note!

Just because your company has only employee shouldn't make it any different from larger companies. If you become ill and cannot work, then the money that the company earned should keep you until you're able to work again. If the director (you) chose to pay yourself overly generous dividends in the 'good times' then you can hardly moan about lack of sick pay, etc. in the 'bad times'. You've already taken the sick pay out of the company as income.

This is why so many contractors fall foul of IR35, they view all income as theirs, when in reality it is the company's.

I currently have 12 month's worth of company outgoings in my company account. If I am ill or cannot find a contract, the company will continue to pay me a basic wage until I get better or find work. To me there is no difference from being employed by my company or being employed by (say) IBM, except that I feel more secure in my company during bad times because my future is in my own hands.

Pennywise

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

The money a company earns in the 'good years' should be sat in the company bank account, ready to cover salaries and other outgoings during lean years. If the directors decide to give that money away in overly generous dividends to their shareholders then that's their choice, but they can't moan when they go bust. Northern Rock, HBOS, etc. take note!

Also memo to Gordon Brown to take note .....:D

ad44downey

Incredibly it seems that quite a few people on here believe that we shouldn't tax the rich at all, just the poor people! We seemingly can't tax the rich because:
(A) If they don't feel like paying any tax they'll employ a clever accountant to ensure they don't
(B) We can't take the risk that they'll move abroad.

We need a much fairer and simpler tax system. So that the rich pay alot more and that there's no point in them employing clever accountants to exploit tax loopholes because those tax loopholes no longer exist!

chucky

ad44downey wrote: »

Incredibly it seems that quite a few people on here believe that we shouldn't tax the rich at all, just the poor people! We seemingly can't tax the rich because:
(A) If they don't feel like paying any tax they'll employ a clever accountant to ensure they don't
(B) We can't take the risk that they'll move abroad.

We need a much fairer and simpler tax system. So that the rich pay alot more and that there's no point in them employing clever accountants to exploit tax loopholes because those tax loopholes no longer exist!

why do you care!!

you're on benefits!!