Suggestions for Osborne's July budget

cells

michaels wrote: »

Gets my vote, I was sitting next to someone on the train last night who was flashing about their accountants tax statement clearly showing they received a salary of £10k (does this work out as minimum wage times 30 hours per week?) even though their company billed 60k pa and the rest was taken as dividends. As you say no doubt their train ticket was being paid for by the company along with whatever else. Sure this is avoidance not evaision but I thought IR35 was supposed to have stopped this sort of thing?

The company pays Corp tax which for most cases will be 20%
For the profits they can be taken as dividends which are then taxed again

Generally it is a bit lower overall tax but not by that much and there is the very real cost of their time and money spent on accountants to consider.

lisyloo

Generally it is a bit lower overall tax but not by that much and there is the very real cost of their time and money spent on accountants to consider.

This doesn't match my personal experience.
Doing the accounts is a pain but it doesn't cost anything to do it in personal time.

There is real money lost though if you are sick - so as a result contractors tend to not take sick days unless they are really on their death bed.

caronoel

cells wrote: »

But they pay tax twice. 20% in corp tax and then 32 5% on divi tax (with a 10% tax credit taking it down to 22.5%)

So if they get £100k they will end up with 62k
minus cost and time involved in drawing up accounts etc and thr fact that they are more disposable. If you put the cost of accounting at £2k they onky get ~60k on 100k or 40% effective tax rate which is more or less the same as the 40% higher rate tax band

£2k is a lot for annual accounts for a one man band - don't forget that all of this can be written off against tax too, which a regular employee cannot do.

Ever wonder who sits in the first class carriage on commuter trains? A large proportion of them could be contractors, who are getting a 40% tax subsidy on their train fares. This is in addition to work lunches, coffees, and an annual staff entertainment allowance.

All of these tax exemptions are unfair, and should go.

NICHOLAS_2

cells wrote: »

Thats a pretty stupid idea

virtually everyone has an inbuilt calorie counter so if they eat more of x they eat less of y. And of course if they eat less of x they eat more of y

Also if people stop dieing of something lets say diabetes they don't become immortals who will never need the NHS again. They just live a bit longer and need more health care down the line. So if saving the NHS money is your thing then they should try to reduce things that kill people slowly and costly like dementia and not try so much to stop quick killers lole heart attacks

It isn't though, they aren't slow killers. Apparently, according to the media, half the country, if not more, is obese. Fat people are prone to all sorts of illnesses that cost the NHS money, as do smokers and binge drinkers.

I used to be a smoker, a binge drinker and a takeaway muncher but i knocked it on the head to save money and to become healthy. I've saved £££££££££££ and only ever had to use the nhs once to get a cut glued together, but i'm still eligible to pay full National Insurance and the high taxes we get in rip off britain to account for all of those who are obese lager louts with 100 kids.

I think there has only been on year when smoking has profited the government and not cost them more in NHS spend, so why not put fags up even more? The same can be said for chocolate, what about all of the people getting free nhs treatment for their rotten teeth? There's countless ways fat and greedy people cost tax payers money... how much do gastic bands cost the nhs a year

NICHOLAS_2

caronoel wrote: »

£2k is a lot for annual accounts for a one man band - don't forget that all of this can be written off against tax too, which a regular employee cannot do.

Ever wonder who sits in the first class carriage on commuter trains? A large proportion of them could be contractors, who are getting a 40% tax subsidy on their train fares. This is in addition to work lunches, coffees, and an annual staff entertainment allowance.

All of these tax exemptions are unfair, and should go.

I'm self employed and flirted with a ltd company once upon a time, make no mistake, it isn't as good as it looks

This country is expensive to do business in. Little perks, which are little, can't be taken away.

It's not like expenses are a great bonus.

You can have a small bit of luxury like claiming for things you use at home for all sorts and pretending they are for work but ultimately the goal is to be as profitable as you can after tax and buying stuff willy nilly to avoid paying some tax is usually more costly than just paying the tax.

Sapphire

Eliminate contract work on the NHS, which costs a massive amount of money, and employ more people as full-time staff.

I don't know other public-sector enterprises, but do the same thing in them wherever sharp practices such as this, involving a great number of people profiteering from taxpayers' money, occur.

lisyloo

to account for all of those who are obese lager louts with 100 kids.

Being fat clearly doesn't affect fertility then :-)

caronoel

NICHOLAS wrote: »

It's not like expenses are a great bonus.

You can have a small bit of luxury like claiming for things you use at home for all sorts and pretending they are for work but ultimately the goal is to be as profitable as you can after tax and buying stuff willy nilly to avoid paying some tax is usually more costly than just paying the tax.

Really?

• My annual travelcard is £5k (Standard class),
• £10 a day on lunch and coffees, that's another £2k per year,
• New laptop or the latest iPhone anyone? There's another £1k

Plenty of other tax wheezes could take this up quickly to north of £10k. These sorts of perks shouldnt be subsidised by the taxpayer.


Add to that the Flat rate VAT scheme which effectively gives contractors a 6% pay uplift (7% in year 1), and the morality of these subsidies to people often earning well into six figures really becomes questionable.

NICHOLAS_2

lisyloo wrote: »

Being fat clearly doesn't affect fertility then :-)

You should know

Generali

If you're going to get the deficit down you effectively have three choices:

1. Cut welfare spending
2. Cut health spending
3. The power of prayer

That's about it. Cut welfare by a lot, give a lot less money to the NHS or get yourself down to the local church/synagogue/temple/friends house/stone circle.

Welfare and the NHS is where the money goes. If you want less spending, taking money away from anything else is just tinkering.

Why shouldn't the NHS become more efficient? I have to do more with less each year at work and as a company we do that very successfully. Why can't we expect that the NHS use resources more effectively?

Are we really saying that every single person employed by the NHS does a useful job in the best possible way? I bet they don't.