IR35 - HMRC's View

[ASB]

No, progressive taxation is fair. Those with a higher income can better afford to pay a higher rate of tax. My complaint about NI is that the person with a higher income pays a much lower rate of NI, because of the upper earnings limit.

I'm a Farquhing Tarqser

Sorry I'm confused. I personally don't like progressive taxation (at least in as much as the way we happen to implement it, I'd prefer a more graduated approach).

On the one hand NI is just a tax. As such prior to about 40k you pay 20% + 12 odd %. Over this amount you pay 40% + 1%. So the effective progressive rates are about 32% and 41%. Of course there is no upper NI limit for employers so it make the rates both consistently higher.

On the other hand NI shouldn't be capped on employees. This would nake the progressive rates effectively 32 and 53%. I think you are saying that the progressive rates aren't high enough further up the scale (and that before the new 50% band is included).

Certainly it used to be the case - and isn't any more - that there were small bandings of income where the overall "government take" became lower. That was certainly a bit odd. It happened when ER's contributions were still capped and the EE cap was well inside the standard rate band. It happened, I feel for perfectly reasonable reasons. The government of the day was still keeping to the charade that NI was to pay for the social good.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

If they have two and need only one, but you have none and need one, then yes.

I wouldn't usually get involved in this type of debate and I suspect you are trolling; however, how can it possibly be fair that someone who has worked hard and achieved wealth should be forced to give it to someone who has done nothing to improve their own circumstances.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

I wouldn't usually get involved in this type of debate and I suspect you are trolling; however, how can it possibly be fair that someone who has worked hard and achieved wealth should be forced to give it to someone who has done nothing to improve their own circumstances.

I often suspect myself of trolling, but ....

Would it be fair if someone who has worked hard and achieved wealth is forced to give some it to someone who has also worked hard but through no fault of their own has not achieved wealth?

That is, do you object to the welfare state completely, or just to spongers?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I often suspect myself of trolling, but ....

Would it be fair if someone who has worked hard and achieved wealth is forced to give some it to someone who has also worked hard but through no fault of their own has not achieved wealth?

That is, do you object to the welfare state completely, or just to spongers?

Give me an example of 'through no fault of their own'

[The Wikir Man]

Give me an example of 'through no fault of their own'

Those that choose public service rather than other avenues of work - teachers, nurses, care home workers, police....

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Those that choose public service rather than other avenues of work - teachers, nurses, care home workers, police....

Well the pertinent word here is 'choose' isn't it - it may be that someone who chooses to work as a nurse because they find the work fulfilling and rewarding would be just as sucessful as a hedge fund manager but would be bored to death by it. It would seem that Tarquin is suggesting that the nurse be subsidised by the hedge fund manager for no other reason that the hedge fund manager has chosen a path which reaps greater financial reward.

[meridian]

I often suspect myself of trolling, but ....

Would it be fair if someone who has worked hard and achieved wealth is forced to give some it to someone who has also worked hard but through no fault of their own has not achieved wealth?

That is, do you object to the welfare state completely, or just to spongers?

But your example is not the question, your example compares wealth, not the necessity of welfare.

I have no objection to a welfare state, provided it is in it's original purpose: to provide a safety net for those in need, to the extent that they need it.

But I do object to the arbitrary redistribution of wealth. No, it is not fair to simply take from those that have and give to those that have less, simply to balance everybody out.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

Give me an example of 'through no fault of their own'

I think your asking that question tells me which side you are on.

[Fred Bloggs]

I wouldn't usually get involved in this type of debate and I suspect you are trolling; however, how can it possibly be fair that someone who has worked hard and achieved wealth should be forced to give it to someone who has done nothing to improve their own circumstances.

It's "fair" because we live in a socialist state. "Fairness" only means what the socialists want it to mean.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I think your asking that question tells me which side you are on.

Why would that stop you answering it????