Suggestions for Osborne's July budget

lisyloo

I think someone mentioned this earlier but wasn't ir35 meant to do that? (Having said that DH is not on ir35)

caronoel

It should do, but It's very easy to get round IR35, as the posts above outline.

It certainly needs to be tightened up.

Thrugelmir

caronoel wrote: »

This inequity is something that needs to be addressed. There is no reason why someone earning £100k plus should pay lower tax (and get child benefits if they have kids) compared to a salaried professional earning the same amount

Most self employed people do not earn anywhere near a £100k pa. Nor for that matter do salaried people.

caronoel

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Most self employed people do not earn anywhere near a £100k pa. Nor for that matter do salaried people.

A majority don't, but in London and the South East there are hundreds of thousands of people who do.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482218/500-000-people-south-east-earn-100-000.html

There is no reason to offer a high earning self employed person far far more generous tax breaks than a salaried person making something a lot closer to average earnings

lisyloo

I'm PAYE and DH is self employed and I agree on the whole.

There is only 1 specific area that I don't agree with and that's the fact that expenses for living away from home stop after 2 years.
HMRCs attitude seems to be that you should move after 2 years, but people can be living and working with temporary arrangements for a lot longer than 2 years.

Living somewhere (away from your home) purely for temporary work IS entirely different to living somewhere with a permanent job.

I'd agree to a PAYE like approach if living away from home for business was an allowable expenses (over a certain distance/time limit - but as said before no one would do it unnecessarily even with a 40% discount)

Andy_L

michaels wrote: »

I can see the headline now 'Chancellor anounces Pussy tax!'

Seeing as how income from prostitution now has to be included in GDP I suspect its only a matter of time time

caronoel

Andy_L wrote: »

Seeing as how income from prostitution now has to be included in GDP I suspect its only a matter of time time

Not declaring income from the oldest profession was what finally got this big fella...

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/al-capone

Generali

caronoel wrote: »

Wow!

It seems the contractors are all out today.

I think I may have hit a raw nerve!

Not really. It's just all a bit pointless: envy politics rather than actually trying to solve the problem at hand.

It's rather like standing in a burning room complaining that more of your stuff is on fire than the bloke you're standing next to rather than trying to put the fire out.

caronoel

Generali wrote: »

Not really. It's just all a bit pointless: envy politics rather than actually trying to solve the problem at hand.

It's rather like standing in a burning room complaining that more of your stuff is on fire than the bloke you're standing next to rather than trying to put the fire out.

Not envy - just equality of treatment.

We are all in this mess together, and tax dodges beloved of contractors need to be addressed.

I'd rather see a highly paid contractor not be able to claim his/her first class season ticket against taxes, before we start cutting frontline government services.

caronoel

Generali wrote: »

Not really. It's just all a bit pointless: envy politics rather than actually trying to solve the problem at hand.

It's rather like standing in a burning room complaining that more of your stuff is on fire than the bloke you're standing next to rather than trying to put the fire out.

What specific areas would you suggest Osborne target in the July budget?